Patriot Scientific

If PTSC/TPL made a license deal with each of the J's that included a one time lump sum payment of money of $6M each for the two larger entities (Matsushita and Toshiba) and $2M each for each fo the two smaller entities (NECLAM and JVC) in return for the rights to the technology covered by the MMP, with the agreement that each entity was responsible to cover its own legal fees to get to that "business resolution of their dispute" then everything that has been said and that has happened to date fits, and has been done legally.

For starters, the deal was announced on 12/18 and the terms of the deal were said to be confidential, and an immediate insider trading restriction was placed on the company and its insiders.
Subsequently, a new CEO was hired who immediately purchased shares of the company in his trust. He did so under the premise (according to him) that he was unaware of the trading restrictions.
Later on, the 10q was released revealing the financial reporting for the quarter during which the settlements were executed.
This was followed the next day with a letter revealing that the report "fully reflected the financial results" of all transactions made prior to Jan 31, 2008.

So at this point we know what the financial fruits of the settlement were as they have been publically disclosed as required, though only in a general fashion as they are lumped in with all other licenses signed during the period. The specific "terms of the settlement" were not released so the confidentiality has not been breached.

Following this, a few weeks later, an additional correspondence is issued by the company in which the CEO further clarifies the financial status of the company's overall licensing activities, by explaining that ALL licensees to date have paid one-time lump sum payments rather than on-going royalty payments (an avaiable option being offered by Alliancens that we learn for the FIRST time publicly).

Again, the "terms of the settlements" have still been kept confidential as nothing SPECIFIC to the settlements has been disclosed.

Additionally, during this period of time, several shareholders have asked and their questions have been answered by the company regarding issues surrounding the settlements, and the 10q results in general. In answering those questions, the company has NOT revealed any of the confidential terms of the settlement.

For example, to say that the J's will pay NO MORE EVER AGAIN, the company is NOT revealing terms of the settlement. In fact, they are simply confirming something that IS NOT a term of the settlement. They could also answer that the J's will not provide PDS with Toshiba Laptops, and JVC Receivers, but that would NOT reveal "terms of the settlements", it would simply be stating a fact and clarifying a question to its shareholders that is NOT part of the settlement.

Clearly, the list of things that the company can state is NOT part of the settlement is endless. And, if this board is any measure, the scenarios that can be concocted to be potentially "part of the terms of the settlement" that we could ask questions about are endless, however, in answering those questions that are NOT terms of the settlement, the company would not be breaching any confidentiality. Providing those answers through the typical IR channel or through a private conversation with a shareholder is NO different, as the pertinent public disclosure about the financial result of the transactions has ALREADY been made public. Adding clarification or answering someone's question, or misunderstanding, even if it is just to that person, is NOT disclosure of material information or in conflct with any disclosure regulations.

So if anyone has a direct line to RG, or other "sources close to PTSC" that tell them something that IS NOT part of the settlement, they in fact should have no restriction on that communication provided it is not disclosing anything confidential to the settlements, or providing any "Insider Information". Once RG writes to everyone that the financial results have been fully reflected in the 10q report, and further clarifies that the licenses have been paid in one-time lump-sum payments, and should I choose to ignore those direct statements and instead continue to assume there's more to the deal, simply because someone asked the question of whether there is more to the deal, and it was answered only to them that there isn't, is not providing them with Insider Information. That same information was already disclosed to me in the 10q, the letter associated with the 10q, and the follow up letter to shareholders in May. Simply because I didn't want to digest and believe that information doesn't make the company responsible for telling it again to me everytime they tell it to someone else.

I hope that clarifies it a bit more.