You may be correct. This ITC decision is IMO an extremely important hurdle to overcome, and time is ticking away. And that same ticking clock is the reason I continue to oppose any formal action against PTSC or TPL/Leckrone. IMO, any such action will certainly generate another dispute, which as we all know would be a major "time killer". And prospects for licensing during that dead time would be minimal.

As for PTSC being in its infancy, you are correct in that PTSC has been around for a long time and there have been opportunities missed. Where I'm coming from with my "infancy" characterization is that FINALLY:

We have patents that have made it through a myriad of re-exams by the PTO - and survived.

We have relative peace between PTSC, TPL and Moore.

We have agreements in place giving more control of licensing to PTSC (not to the degree I would want, but far better than in the past). No more commingling.

We have TPL/Leckrone in bankruptcy, and the opportunities that may present (possibilities for a controling interest in PDS/MMP).

We have valid cause for the ITC to review the ALJ decision.

We have a verdict of infringement from the Fed Dist Court.

We have, with an ITC decision to review, valid cause for the ALJ's decision to be reversed in our favor (Fed Dist Court verdict has deference/prevails).

We still have a bunch (not as many as before) of Respondants/accused entities via the ITC action, some of those companies being truly gigantic.

We have some 400+ companies on notice, possibly many more.

We do have some time to notify many more companies of their infringement, with a bottomless pool of candidates (remember, TI alone has 80.000 customers per their Web site). Smaller licenses due to short time of exposure, but I'll take a high volume of relatively small licenses over nothing beyond what we can get from those already notified.

In licensing, on the down side we have awareness of the Apple license value (no matter which one you want to believe, all of them are very weak - it was Apple!). On the up side, we have valid patents and a Fed District Court verdict of infringement (and the further influence that could easily have with the ITC). Validity and a verdict of infringement is strong ammunition for future licensing, which could be further enhanced with a positive outcome at the ITC (which I suspect they're holding out for - a big buck settlement to offset Apple and HTC).

We do still have to contend with TPL/Alliacense/Leckrone, but I honestly see no viable way around it unless PTSC secures a controling interest in PDS, which could enable complete control of Alliacense/licensing.

We have a BoD which some trust and others do not. I don't think they are going away, and an attempt to force them out would likely result in a dispute, resulting in licensing "dead time" when time is very short. But the BoD has openly acknowledged their past mis-steps, and has indicated their intent multiple times to issue dividends when sufficient funds become available - exactly what the vast majority of shareholders want. They intend to do what shareholders want, and some think it's time to replace them? Kind of counter-intuitive IMO. I see the BoD openly committing to do exactly what the vast majority of shareholders wants as a positive thing - silly me.

But you know all of the above. Unfortunately you focus all of your attention, or try to get everyone elses attention focused on ONE thing - BoD mis-steps of the past. Though YOU dismiss the company's commitment to do want YOU want (at least with regard to dispursement of future revenues). Certainly, you have all of the rest of the above in mind (it's why you stay invested), but choose to virtually never mention them.

As for your suggestion that I "dismiss Fundamentals", I agree I do when considering an investment in a micro-cap company. There's a reason why most OTCBB stocks are OTCBB stocks (or whatever we're currently rated) - their Fundamentals typically suck. It's the nature of the beast. Their fundamentals don't support a move to the big boards. That's what makes investing in OTCBB is HIGH RISK. And anyone with any sense at all KNOWS you only absorb high risk when there exists, in your perception, a POTENTIAL for an extraordinarily high ROI. DUH! An investment in PTSC, or virtually any other microcap, is made with major attention to Potential and little attention to non-existent Fundamentals. Your alternative is to invest in a company with major attention to the strength of Fundamentals, absorb far less perceived risk and accept a far smaller Potential return. Duh again!

As for your perceived failure on my part to post the positives, as reflected above, I find it somewhat of a waste of time for two reasons. First, it gets lost in the noise of the ceaselss focus on negative shit from years ago. Second, just like the First, EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS! That's why we're still here, ain't it? The Positives, and the Potential. Duh yet again.

Nobody would be here if they truly felt the negatives out-weighed the positives. Last Duh.

So now tell us how you didn't invest in PTSC, or stay invested, based purely on Potential. It ceratinly wasn't based on your all-important Fundamentals!

And IMO, from here, I strongly believe PTSC will be well into living up to its Potential within six months. And with that, the Fundamentals should improve drastically. Either this scenario, or some stupidity by the ITC or other Gov't entity will foul us or some stupid dispute arises and we're done. The only question is can you tolerate the risk?

I can. And I am obviously not alone.

SGE