I originally discounted Tobak's commentary. I was a bit concerned about the fairly aggressive rebuttal stance that many of the board members took. I refrained from commentary, as I originally read PTSC's inclusion just at Tobak stated he intended it.

However, after the well articulated and on the mark criticisms, and his less than forthcoming responses, not to mention some of his "up and to the right" type comments, which seemed to me intended to kind of mock PTSC, he truly seems to have an agenda regarding PTSC that he refuses to admit. WIth that in mind, I posted a response to his blog today, that hopefully gets the FACTS out about PTSC, while still taking Tobak to task. While I originally was ambivilent about it, I think you, greeneyes, and the others that posted and/or addressed him or CNET did the right thing, IMO, and your actions inspired mine, so thanks for your efforts.

Here's my rebuttal to him FWIW:

"You indicate that you learned to communicate in a "crystal clear" manner while a marketing executive, yet you seem to have left that skill behind based on this particular thread of commentary.

First of all, you lump Patriot Scientific in with some "disaster" stocks. Then after some negative feedback, you "clarify" your inclusion of PTSC by saying that inclusion was based solely on its performance since its IPO, which took place over 10 years ago. When some remind you that while it has a timultuous history from a share price performance, you seem to be ignorant of or at least ignoring the developments of the last three years, which in the context of a CURRENT blog on performance clearly SHOULD HAVE been taken into consideration. You indicate that you are quite aware of PTSC's "story" as you had just last year been asked to and agreed to speak with one of its board members.

Then you further expound on this interaction with PTSC investors with today's offering, which while it doesn't specifically mention the company, you imply was effected by the comments you received back from PTSC investors. In it, you indicate that people shouldn't beleive everything they read, that they should consider the source, do DD, and use logic. Yet you continue to refuse to follow any of those rules with respect to clarifying what you clearly misrepresented about PTSC's current status.

What you should clarify, in order to be "crystal clear", is to note that PTSC has put over 300 companies "on-notice" that they infringe on PTSC's IP. You should also note that of those more than 300 companies, 44 of them have signed license agreements with PTSC and its partner. Of those 44, you should note that 5 of them (and affiliated entities), bohemoth's all, fought in court trying to avoid having to license, claiming the patents invalid or that they didn't infringe. Of those 5, 2 and a half decided to settle early and avoid protracted legal battles, and treble damage risks. Fujitsu paid over $30M for that right. Sony over $10M, and part of NEC over $15M.

Furthermore, after a very successful Markman hearing in PTSC's favor, and after further maneuvering by the remaining infringers, all of them decided to settle just prior to going to trial. So the likes of Toshiba, Matsushita & JVC, and the remaining NEC entity, after a 2 year battle, decided they wouldn't win the court battle, and instead settled. Since the settlements in late December, another 10 companies have signed license agreements.

While the first 25 license agreements represented over $214 MILLION in license fees, roughly half of which PTSC gets (the other half going to its partner TPL), the other 19 (including the settlements) have yet to be reported though approximately 16 of them will be revealed in the pending quarterly financial filing for PTSC.

The filing represents what should be a watershed moment for PTSC and could well launch it past its IPO share pricing that you so derisively tried to reconnect it to in your piece. This is just some of the "DD" and "logic" that comes from a variety of confirmable and independent "sources" that pass the "smell test" and have proven true over "time". Your refusal to include them to create a crystal clear view of PTSC, but instead to imply again today that somehow the objecting investor's views are somehow flawed shows your unwillingness to accept that you misrepresented PTSC by including it in your original piece, and that by continuing to do so, YOUR motivation and YOU as a source should be questioned. PTSC investors have justifyably done just that. Hopefully, your comment hasn't obfuscated the "value proposition" that PTSC really is."