Don't get me wrong, I certainly believe that PTSC should provide transparency regarding the Markman Ruling so that all shareholders, not just ones who frequent the message boards, would be aware of it. Despite much ridicule from the usual suspects, I championed that view after the June 12 ruling, and hold the same position now.

IMO, it's PTSC's responsibility to us as shareholders to not only notifiy us of this important ruling (even if not material), but also to explain it.While I apprecaite the insight offered by certain posters here, I think it's incumbent on the company to clearly and truthfully communicate the meaning of the ruling so as to control the message in a way that relegates speculation, pro or con, to a minimum. Doing so would allow educated decisions and investment speculation to be made rather than leaving it up to the pump and dump opportunists that have often controlled the PTSC share price. IMO, it's the responsible and proactive position a competent group of company stewards would take.

IMO a PR is warranted, and it's quick dissemination is preferred though if delaying it by a few days allows for other contributing or mitigating events to be also communicated, I think that's perfectly acceptable. As for 8K's, its been PTSC's practice to issue such after non-license related PR's in more recent history, so I wouldn't be surprised if one followed a PR, but, based on history, I doubt the 8K will be issued due to the materiality of the event.