I've read your post a couple of times, as well as Fut's post you were responding to.

First, I saw no suggestion that "you [Fut] want lecky in charge". He didn't say that, at all. What he said was that DL is far more qualified to sit on the PDS Management Committee than is Brian from the standpoint of IP licensing experience. No argument there.

You say, regarding DL: "I hope the creditors come after him big time". Um, they already did!

As for your depiction of a Swartz plus DL conspiracy of some sort, IMO you have no idea what you are talking about. I'll put it this way: Carl is employed as Counsel for Swartz, and the level of dislike Carl holds for DL is extreme. I've only talked with Carl a few times, and every time this message got through very loud and clear. So I have difficulty understanding how Swartz would ignore his own paid Counsel and side with the perceived "enemy". You suggest Swartz still maintains a large holding of PTSC stock, which I suspect is true. Are you suggesting that Swartz has somehow benefitted from DL/TPL's actions over the last 6 years? Has his remaining stock holding value done anything for him that hasn't been experienced by all other shareholders - i.e., essentially "dead money", sidelined awaiting events like those unfolding today?

I attended the shareholder meeting-before-last. I met DL. I met Eric Swartz. Eric sat at the very back of the room, and DL sat in the front row - one chair away from me (and I exercised remarkable restraint, resisting the urge to "rattle his cage"). Perhaps someone else witnessed things that I didn't, but from what I saw (and I was passively watching), there was no contact between the two beyond a possible "acknowledgement of existence". There was absolutely zero indication that there was anything approaching a friendly relationship between the two. Perhaps someone else who attended that meeting saw something that I didn't - and if so please chime in (Marc, Larry, Hemdog and brother, Turk, anyone?). I wasn't in constant "stare mode" and may have missed it.

And somehow you imagine that PTSC is responsible for DL's actions? Seriously? Who is ultimately responsible for DL being involved with the MMP, PTSC, and us? Chuck Moore, who I'm certain has recognized his error in judgment.

As for putting DL in the "back seat", IMO DL is no longer in the driver's seat per se, failed to pronounce "shotgun", and has placed himself in the back seat as a result of his own actions, and those of PTSC (via the Apple dispute and resulting settlement agreement). This especially under current circumstances as I explained in my earlier post - TPL/PTSC Settlement Agreement and DL/TPL's current issues with bankruptcy and resulting multi-party Bankruptcy Committee intense scrutiny.

Yup, DL is still in primary control of Alliacense, though PTSC has at least 50% control of the primary funding of Alliacense. That's a pretty big hammer, especially with DL/TPL supposedly being flat broke (or at least forced to depict this circumstance). And these days we have the Bankruptcy Committee and a bunch of hawk eyes watching diligently.

As much as some persist in suggesting the contrary, I submit that PTSC is by far in the best shape it's ever been since I started watching/investing in late 1997. Validity of the MMP. At least an initial ruling of infringement of the MMP. Maximum scrutiny/contol of the untrustworthy licensing agent partner.

And consider this (which I've been thinking about): Can you imagine the kind of pressure being applied on TI, along with any other supplier of infringing tech, by their customers? Not to mention, again, the virtual endless number of apparently infringing entities yet to be formally notified. They will be screaming! Our negotiating position right now? Golden, IMO.

FWIW,

SGE