IMO, posters and readers here tend to think that the universe of PTSC shareholders is bounded only by those who participate here on this message board. IMO, that's simply a misguided view.

The FACTS of the matter are that PTSC has painted the survival of the company as deeply dependent on the litigation process that is currently underway of which the Markman ruling is a critical milestone. They've also reinforced the obvious, that the resolution of litigation/licensing with infringers will have a very impactful result on the company depending on how successful that resolution is. They highlight that licensing proceeds have been inconsistent and state that adequate licensing proceeds are part an parcel to that survival as well.

That can all be read in the Risk Factors section of the recent 10q and preceeding filings as well. They include that section as they EXPECT that those issues WILL INFLUENCE an investor's likelihood to invest or not invest.

In the last 10q, they also specifically referenced the partial claims construction ruling from June that they PR'd to inform shareholders of in July. They also mentioned that there was to be an additional hearing held on 11/30 to resolve the remaining claims construction issues.

Essentially, my point in this post is that PTSC has, through its SEC Filings and prior precedents of PR communications, put these issues at the level of "materiality". That threshold is essentially information that would substantially affect someone's investment decision. Results (pro or con) of a critical ruling, or settlement / licensing of a critical infringer (critical because they were in litigation vs an infringer that simply signed a license) IMO should be PR'd as they would IMO impact an existing or potential investor in PTSC's decisions to buy, sell or hold.

This isn't an issue of PR to raise the price of the stock or make the company look good, it's a matter of a PR (or SEC 8K filing) in order to COMMUNICATE to shareholders what has occurred in the critical issues affecting the company's future.

Again, just because posters on the Agoracom message board have figured out that these things occurred, doesn't mean that these facts are known by the PTSC Shareholder Base, or that the company has fulfilled its disclosure obligations.\

I think it's important that Agoracom posters realize that there are likely thousands of investors who know NOTHING about the recent Markman Final Ruling, or of the Barco settlement, and as such, may have SOLD their shares in PTSC because they saw no new developments, or potential investors who may be waiting to take a chance and buy PTSC shares based on some positive developments with the litigation process. That posters here continue to argue that a PR or other communication is unwarranted or unnecessary because THEY and WE are already aware of these developments is just plain wrong, IMO. The only reason NOT to communicate these issues would be if they were inconsequential or if there were legal issues that precluded the release of that information, IMO.