How do you think PTSC gets rid of its outside accounting firm and contracts with another?

With the answer to that question in mind, and realizing that PDS is now the licensor of the MMP, how then would PDS get rid of its outside licensing firm and contract with another?

When you consider that PDS, our joint venture with TPL, was set up to have 3 members on its management committee, one from TPL, one from PTSC, and one INDEPENDENT member, and all that is needed is a majority vote to approve business matters, do you NOW realize why some of us have highlighted this issue, and roundly criticized PTSC for at first, alllowing the "independent" member to instead be an employee of TPL, and now allowing that position to be left vacant?

Let's be clear and make sure YOU as well as others understand. TPL is 50% owner of the MMP. We're not ever going to "get rid" of TPL in that sense, and I don't think anyone has proposed that its achievable to do so.

So essentially, that leaves 3 options: 1) Live with the status quo, 2) Take CONTROL of the MMP licensing effort away from TPL or 3) dissolve the PDS partnership, and go about licensing the MMP independently as a partial owner, a right we would have, as would TPL.

For obvious reasons, Option 2 would be the best option, IMO. It doesn't mean that TPL is "gotten rid of", it simply means that their ability to encumber the MMP with their own self serving agenda is curtailed as much as possible.

When you consider that based on the latest 10q revelations, Alliacense now lays claim to 20% off the top of license fees, and that TPL/Alliacense can STILL simultaneously negotiate licenses on all their portfolios along with the MMP license prospect (as shown by the timing of other portfolio licenses PR'd by Alliacense, though we apparently now have at least secured the ability to approve or disapprove of the MMP deal BEFORE it is signed), don't you agree that leaving the licensing effort in the CONTROL of TPL is less than favorable to our position as PTSC shareholders? Do you not understand that the contractual agreement that PDS has with Alliacence is simply that, a contractual agreement for professional services?

I'm not saying is a simple stroke of a pen, and that there is no pain, skill, or corporate fortitude required to re-engineer the role Alliacense plays in the MMP licensing, but for you and others to claim it's somehow insurmountable or a fool's errand is to simply accept what you admit is unsupportable. That is actually what, IMO, is the fool's errand.