The Good is obvious, a major threshold in pursuit of our future success has been achieved. Our position is tremendously improved, and I suspect that everyone shares this opinion. 'Nuff said....

The Bad has been pointed out, again, recently. We're still doing business with DL/TPL - not our favorite entity as a partner. But apparently some don't recognize the situation for what it is, but are stuck in the past. Since execution of the TPL/PTSC Settlement Agreement (and some six months prior per court direction, actually), DL/TPL no longer has sole discretion to execute licenses on behalf of PDS. PTSC must agree. Frequent licensing process status updates to PTSC are required, and are happening. These things I know. But some seem to overlook the rest of the picture. TPL is in bankruptcy. Their every financial move is being carefully observed and monitored by MANY interested parties besides PTSC. IMO, we are in the "safest" position possible at this point, and for the foreseeable future. I suggest we're in far better shape dealing with a "suspect partner" who is being watched as by a hawk by a bunch of folks than we would be in trying to re-start business with a new licensing agent. And how do we escape TPL (and Moore) as co-owners of the MMP? And I repeat, TPL is in bankruptcy. Do you really think their creditors would welcome such a move, and happily say goodbye to any chance of recovering their money?

And then there is the Ugly, which has been appearing lately right here on Agora, coincidentally mostly by the usual folks.

As has been pointed out by others, PTSC should be getting a lot more attention right now, both via word-of-mouth and news/investor media. Prospective new investors (the life-blood of PPS appreciation) are probably looking a little deeper before taking the plunge in a penny stock. Yup, they can read the SEC filings - all about the past.

But things have caused (what most believe should be) a very recent and dramatic change in PTSC's prospects, and that's why we garner their attention. Google PTSC. Readily find Agora - this forum. Look for CURRENT sentiment, what's happening NOW, defects in the investment. Scan Agora subject lines, see the words like "Reverse Split", bad things about the BoD, or stopping business with our licensing agent. Close the window, and move on. I plead that folks consider how they phrase their subject line before posting. Also consider the damage done when posting the SOS. No damage you say? Does it help attract new investors? I don't advocate hiding the past from prospective investors, but question whether a prospective investor gives a damn about the deep, dark past - there is no money to be made in the past, it's about the FUTURE.

The SOS: Stop doing business with TPL. Overthrow the BoD. Select an independent rep for PDS.

We're still in business DL who has the greatest control of Alliacense - the data and infringer notification backbone. In addition to my above opinion that DL/TPL is now under probably the greatest possible scrutiny, the thought of trying to escape that relationship NOW makes very little sense IMO. As others have pointed out, initiating a dispute would likely bring non-current-litigation-opponent infringer notification and licensing to an immediate halt while we again duke it out in court. Our 400+ (800?) prospective licensees suddenly would drop to a handful, those being the ones involving formal litigation and involvement of Agility/Otteson.

This with just about two years left on the '336; more importantly, a very short time in which to identify and notify suspected infringers, thus starting the clock for damages claims/settlement amounts. We could more aggressively pursue them later (6 years beyond patent expiration), but the notices need to be issued ASAP. Last week's verdict propped the door open to a lot of new licensing targets, probably easy targets, yet to be notified - numbering in the thousands (recall TI advertizes the fact that they have 80,000 customers, and Broadcom, and ARM?). And identification/formal notification is the service Alliacense performs. Shut it off???

Likewise any action against PTSC or its BoD by shareholders. You don't even know their current intent going forward, which is probably still just being formulated/formalized (yet always subject to change) because there remain significant things in play which could more dramatically alter the landscape. As thoughtful others have suggested, give a little patience, let some things (e.g., ITC) solidify, at least a little, find out PTSC's plans/intent, and then give some consideration as to whether there is anything reasonable to be negatively excited about. I strongly suspect we'll get at least some insight accompanying the upcoming 10Q.

Yet passers-by see posts on such non-sense. Yep, passers by....

As an aside, some have suggested Otteson as third, independent rep on PDS Committee. Why? So PDS can issue another check for him to do what he is already doing - at least when formal litigation with prospective licensees (big bucks, or what should be) is involved? Nothing against Otteson, we owe him gratitude on top of his/Agility's compensation. But I'd prefer to have him completely focused where his focus belongs and has the greatest benefit. Which is NOT on squabbles between PTSC and TPL.

Brian as new PDS "independent" rep? Long on complaints, short on viable solutions. Yep, that would be a big help....

Enough of my babble..... Back to lurking between moments of joyful dancing in the street (I find I am quite adept at dodging traffic! Not too gracefully, but effectively! LOL).

BTW, Payslslyone got me to thinking the other day (always hazardous! LOL). Recall the addition of that Contingency Clause in Licensing Agreements language that began appearing in 10Qs a little over a year ago? At that time I suspected that the "$ event" had to do with the Markman results in NorCal, and a resulting MSJ in our favor or fat settlement (or some other nearer term event). It now occurs to me that they could easily have selected a more profound event, like the victory last week. Beyond Validity, what was the remaining "loose end" that would make a prospective licensee hesitate to sign? Questions about whether they actually infringe the valid patents? Oh, but it's still not a "done deal", they could appeal. That's not the point here. As I'm sure Ron would agree, it's all about RISK. After the verdict last week, IMO the level of risk to notified infringers changed to the extreme - in our favor.

SGE