Patriot Scientific

Patriot Scientific Reports Profitable Quarter; Q3 FY '08 Net Income $6.3 Million or $0.02 Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share.
Re: ronran
over 16 years ago
18
Re: ronran
over 16 years ago
16
Re: ronran
over 16 years ago
1
0
Re: Borrwdo
over 16 years ago
1
6
2
0
2
8
8
1
3
4
0
2
0
Re:'584
over 16 years ago
1
Re:'584
over 16 years ago
2
SGE.....
over 16 years ago
10
1
uvagrad....
over 16 years ago
0
biomed....
over 16 years ago
1
6
0
1
15
10
@ B-Lunist
over 16 years ago
9
gcduck
over 16 years ago
2
3
5
2
opty....
over 16 years ago
4
14
1
Re: Ron :
over 16 years ago
3
Opty....
over 16 years ago
6
0
0
1
Paul
over 16 years ago
0
SGE.....
over 16 years ago
20
in response to SGE1's message

This discussion is academic to some extent, but likely important to some who read this board in terms of what others (those who have done the most research or who have more knowledge) see as settlement amounts that would be a "win" versus a "loss". That's why IMO it is irresponsible to keep touting "huge" without defining it in a numerical sense. Nevertheless, I will do the best I can to clarify my position for you, although I have said it all in other recent posts.

In the vast majority of settlements, the parties have set their range of expectations beforehand and neither comes away feeling like either a "winner" or a "loser" --- most often, each party feels like they got a result that was in the range of fair valuation, based on the evidence and the arguments made. There are exceptions, as I posted last night, in which one side or the other either does extremely well, which is usually the result of a sudden change in the law or the evidence, or because someone gets "out-lawyered" --- again, however, to get a very skewed result, beyond one's original expectation, doesn't happen every day.

As to a "feather in our cap", that depends upon the way one looks at things. I understand what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing with you in the context in which you are talking --- on the other hand, each of these "feathers" has, since about March 2006, resulted in a dramatic decrease in our share price. That's worse than a "draw" to my way of thinking, and after 8 - 9 years of being invested here, the share price is all that matters to me.

Since you repeat again that we could not have lost in Texas without a finding of infringement (or invalidity), I will repeat that this is simply not accurate (unless you are talking strictly about a legal verdict). Returning to the "skewed" scenarios I mentioned above and my mythical $1.00 settlement, we certainly did not "win" as a practical matter if the J3 settlements were $1.00. Therefore, and also based on Milestone's numbers from a few days ago, I would say that IMO, anything less than a settlement of $50 to $100 million would be characterized as a "loss" by the only group of entities that really matters --- other potential defendants. You and I, as well as everyone else here on the board, can pick any figure we want and call it a "win", "loss", "draw", "so-so", "lukewarm", "good", "bad", "indifferent", or animal, vegetable, or mineral, and it means nada out in the litigation landscape.

This is why I have agreed all along with B-Lunist that a "large" settlement would send a message of "validation" (practically speaking, not in verdict form) of our position to other potential infringers. Conversely, therefore, a "small" settlement will not provide that validation, because it will not instill much, if any, motivation in others to settle at the prices we would like to see. Might there still be settlements? Of course. But are they likely to be of the "increasing" type that have been promised for so long now? Well, I suppose that remains to be seen, but I would think it unlikely. If IBM, for example, was to settle with us, but is later found to have paid a relative pittance, who does that scare? We certainly haven't seen such a thing happen to date, i.e., most of the settlements have remained relatively small --- surely nowhere near the $100+ million that some here like to talk about.

Why isn't PTSC trading at 3.5 cents? Well, I suppose that's because we have been somewhat successful to date and have some money in the bank. On the flip side, however, why isn't it trading at $2.25 like did in early 2006, when it had much less money in the bank, many fewer settlements had occurred, and many of the members here were calling it undervalued even at that level?

We can continue to dance around this more if you wish, but the simple fact of the matter is that the only litigation "win" would be in the form of a verdict, and the only practical "win" is a settlement large enough to cause others to wish to do likewise and in progressively increasing amounts like the Leckrones have represented to us.

Best wishes.

Please login to post a reply
ronran
City
Rank
President
Activity Points
30970
Rating
Your Rating
Date Joined
12/13/2004
Social Links
Private Message
Patriot Scientific
Symbol
PTSC
Exchange
OTCBB
Shares
401,392,948
Industry
Technology & Medical
Website
Create a Post