Patriot Scientific

Read at your own peril, lol! Cure for insomnia follows:

I don't miss your point. The fact is, if you read the CommAg and the Operating Agreement for PDS, there are and were oppotunities for PTSC to impose check and balances, oversight of performance, and enforcement of reporting requirements. Granted, there aren't specific metrics requirements listed, but there are provisions for oversight of "the business plan" and of the licensing efforts, as well as a management committee role that could have imposed those requirements within the contract geared toward avoiding what they allowed to happen.

The problem is, our PTSC reps never did it or pushed it, and even allowed what was supposed to be an evenly represented management committee to be turned to a TPL majority without the slightest opposition, turning an uneven agreement even more against them.

As for the renegotiated agreement, you stipulate improvements that aren't supported by the published documents from what I recall. Perhaps you have some other information? If so, please be specific with references. Aside from PDS being the licensor of record now, and commingling supposedly now forbidden (cmon now that is implicit in the original agreement anyway), the fact that Alliacense can't be fired even for cause, essentially gives them even more control than they had before. That's a DOOZIE, yet you seem to treat it with little regard. How do the "improvements" you refernce overcome that one issue?

Again, you keep trying to push it back to a discussion of whether the intial deal should have been struck or not, and framing it as a take it or leave it proposition. You seem to forget that David Pohl, Carlton Johnson, and Gloria Felcyn were handsomely rewarded with cash payments (something that at the time was not allowed per PTSC's structure) for their instrumental efforts in negotiating the deal. Negotiating doesn't indicate take it or leave it. So it seems it wasn't a take it or leave it proposition, simply a poorly negotiated one our part. Also, IMO, the debate isn't as much about whether the original merger should have occurred, but how PTSC's representatives have managed, or more appropriately, been absent in managing, our interests in its execution.

Lastly, as for what PTSC's BOD should be doing differently now? That's too broad a question. In many ways, it's like asking what should someone do who is facing completing their thesis in order graduate, all in the context of after they got admiitted to college, they skipped most of their classes, didn't do a lot of their homework, got mostly D's for grades, and haven't done the research necessary for successful completion of their thesis.

The obvious answer is that there's not much they CAN do at this point except perhaps, get someone else, who knows what they're doing to do the thesis for them. Another option is to recognize how badly they have failed, and work as hard as possible to make up for their past failure and leave no stone unturned in getting it done (does anyone get that impression?! lol). I'll leave the legal minds to determine and recommend what more they could do on the legal front, but on the basic Management of a Public Company front, they could do any and all of the following:

• Communicate proactively, forthrightly, and transparently with shareholders.
• Reduce their drain on company treasury by eliminating their salaries, or at least substantially reducing them in light of their past failures and in an effort to give PTSC as much financial runway as possible so they cut as few discount licenses just to survive, as possible.
• By stock in PTSC on the open market in large quantities out of their own pockets.
• Respond to, heck, just acknowledge, shareholder e-mails and questions.
• Step down and put people in charge who know what their doing or can rescue the situation
• etc.

Based on THEIR current actions, read: NOT Agoracom posters' posts, the company is projecting an image of a company in its death throes. Perhaps they are. Hopefully they're not. Certainly, ducking shareholders' queries, having virtual shareholder meetings, not announcing licensing activities, not actively pushing every conceivable weakness of their business partner's current state (despite his taking advantage of every weakness of their own they've presented to him) are all contributing to the very poor and weak image of PTSC and its value as an investment or worthwhile risk.

Every excuse that is granted to them in their current situation, ie. legal limitations, confidentiality requirements, don't piss off the opposition or the judges, don't project the plan for fear it weakens it, etc. etc. have all been used every step of the way in providing cover.

You mentioned you were weary earlier. Well, consider yourself in good company, but rather than just shrug it off as an oh well, that's the ancient past, and you can't make money in the past, I'd suggest you'd be better off to question the future and demand that it be approached DIFFERENTLY than the past.

There is obviously great POTENTIAL in the MMP Licensing. The patents have proven valid thorugh the USPTO process, and there is an infringement verdict against a high profile electronics company as well as licenses with many of the major electronics companies in the world, as well as several other market sector leaders.

However, these things have always been there with the MMP. The patents have always been valid and that status has only been made clearer. There have always been licenses consumated and court victories secured either through settlements or litigation. Only the ITC has offered a setback and considering the subjective nature of that venue, despite the attractive hammer success would have offered, it's not surprising there was a setback there. There are "apparently" hundreds of more infringing companies on notice and subject to licensing. On the MMP front, the only major negative is the upcoming expiration of the patents, and the still challenging process of securing the license. So, IMO, the MMP positives have always been there and on a graph, would represent a fairly level line at a higher range on the graph.

But, we have to monetize that potential, and unfortunately, it's the other collateral aspects of the MMP that endanger it, and have weakened that monetization. TPL's shennanigans, and PTSC's unwillingness and inability to protect its asset, while at the same time squandering the fruits it has born, are why the market sees PTSC as a 5 cent stock.

Sure, you can't change the past, but you can make the changes necessary to try to avoid the same mistakes over and over. PTSC can't seem to make those changes. There's an old saying that goes like this, "You don't have to be great to begin, but you DO have to BEGIN to be GREAT. Is it too late? The market seems to think so.