I talked to Cliff and got a couple of answers for you/everyone:

- How many licenses did the 10Q include?

Cliff says this actually is a difficult question to answer, depending on how you decide you want to count them. The difficulty being Corporations and their significant Subsidiaries. PTSC typically counts at top level, while TPL/Alliacense may or may not. He said that there is no intent to deceive, at all, and that PTSC tries to stay on the same page as TPL in this regard, but they are not always like-minded (no surprise there!).

Actually, we here on Agora have done the same kind of thing; recall the "J3" - how many companies was that really, counting the North American and other subsidiaries? And I believe that since each is a separate corporate entity, there would naturally have to be multiple physical licenses signed (though there may have only been one license fee check passed).

In any case, Cliff said that he will attempt to do a detailed manual count and disclose to all shareholders in a future (possibly next) communication to ALL shareholders (presumeably including his "count methodology"). As is appropriate, and consistent in my infrequent chats with Cliff (perhaps once per quarter), he is very sensitive to avoid giving info to any one shareholder and not ALL shareholders concurrently.

- Why haven't they PRd the known recent licenses?

I did not ask this question today, because I think I already have the answer from previous talks where I would mention licensees that are disclosed in PACERS and such, but not via PR (e.g., GE and Motorola). Of course it has to do with Confidentiality Agreements. Apparently, the concern is in how the licensee info gets out. Due to the Confidentiality Agreements, PTSC would be in direct violation if they overtly announce (i.e., via PR), but it is far less an issue when "inadvertently" made known to a very limited intended audience via a court document where the purpose/intent is not to announce the info, but to support a legal/litigation position. This does make sense to me....perhaps an attorney could address this further. And I suspect it may also be due to the exact legal wording of each such agreement.

- Have PTSC's obligation to PDS actually increased resulting from the new CA? No.

Dovetailed from that, as in the more recent Qs/K, Cliff emphasized that there does remain to possibility of PTSC gaining (percentage ownership) control of PDS. Here "obligations" would change from an accounting perspective, with PTSC having to include PDS as a component, similar how they used to handle Holocom, CrossFlow, etc., in their filings. I realized this isn't the type of "obligation" you intended. So we circled around and he came back to the original conclusion of "no", from the perspective of PTSC's obligations as things stand today, they are unchanged from the original ComAg.

I asked about the impact of the NDoC victory on the ITC, and whether, as has been suggested here, the NDoC verdict "automatically" overrides the ALJ Final Determination. Cliff's understanding is that it may be presented and could serve as a subjective factor for consideration, but it certainly doesn't cause a "slam dunk" scenario. (Darn it!)

Further on the ITC, I asked whether they have any indication as to whether the review decision will be timely. They are apparently shut down (or did that change this afternoon? I haven't been watching - the whole Gov't shut-down issue just pisses me off), so he has no idea.

Also, as has been mentioned in the recent Qs/K, TPL's bankruptcy "issues" may present opportunities, ones that PTSC continuously ferrets. I would have been surprised if they didn't constantly watch for an "opening". And this takes us back to the above re: percentage ownership of PDS/MMP.

I asked about any behind-the-scenes between Swartz and Leckrone, as some here keep insisting. Nope, nothing there. I got the strong impression that per Cliff's understanding, Swartz's attitude about Leckrone is the same as that of 99+% of all other shareholders (I can't say "all" because Leckrone too is a PTSC shareholder!).

All-in-all a good, constructive talk, as always. I hope the above is helpful. BTW, he fielded a LOT of calls from shareholders yesterday afternoon and today, and is still working his list of people whose calls he needs to return.

SGE