Brian, I appreciate your reasonable post, especially your sentence "The BOD and Shareholders are on the same page with regards TPL and Alliasence." and I agree from an emotional point of view but from a business perspective I see no practicable way to dissolve from TPL.

I know (as you will, too) that the BoD/CEO of PTSC are not happy with TPL being the licensing partner and I'm sure they have deeply discussed this in 2010 but IMO the following aspects might have lead to a continuation of the partnership with TPL:

- PTSC only owns 50 % what about the other 50 %? Do we know for sure what Moore would do?

- The licensing activity would immediately come to a standstill for at least 6-9 months with disastrous consequences for the shareprice

- The lifecycle of the MMP is too short for such a dramatic change - this should have be done in 2006/2007

- One has to admit that TPL brought in more than $300mio of MMP revenue, has managed to install the MMP as recognized/noted patent portfolio in the industry and built up a technical know-how regarding the use of the MMP patents in a wide range of products in different industries, not to mention their sales and communications network they have installed during the last eight years

Hence, to repeat myself, I see no realistic possibility for a separation but a huge negative impact of this discussion:
it deters new investors from PTSC and causes a stir among current shareholders.

So if we all agree that the BoD and the shareholders are on the same page then we should support them NOW and empower them to get more control towards TPL in order to create the best possible outcome of this difficult alliance.

Therefore I'd welcome any discussion HOW we can strengthen our company as controlling and acting power of this tripartite "partnership" and I'm sure a lot more shareholders would follow this way (instead of a discussion which runs the risk of being another "bashing the BoD rant).

GLTA