IMO the most important question that should be asked is why does management think anyone should invest or stay invested in PTSC. I will continue to remain an investor for my own reasons but for those who are skeptical and uncertain (as i'm sure most are) this question will encompass most of the listed questions. Let management convince investors why PTSC is a better investment than other companies out there.

Well for obvious reasons I hope you are incorrect and the reason that the PTO rejected the two patents was because someone familiar with the patents was not present during any meetings,phone conversations or any other form of communication with the examiners. The flawed description the examiner provided of the handshaking protocol indicated to me that the examiner did not have a clear grasp of the design. We shall see.

Regarding how high the stakes are, I couldn't agree with you more. But with a high profile court case going on with the T2 and numerous ongoing licensing negotiations being conducted, it seems incredibly naive that public knowledge of this dispute wouldn't adversely affect either of the above. Yet with that knowledge all the dirty laundry was laid out in the open which contradicts your theory. It also seems coincidental that this dispute was resolved only after PTSC investors became aware of it, contacted PTSC, and PTSC applied pressure to CM and more than likely TPL.

I have high regard for CM and I don't blame him. Hopefully investors have not been adversely affected in the meantime. But if I am correct then investors should be aware that certain parties could make use of investor emotions to affect certain outcomes. Nothing new of course.

If you read the interview records with the USPTO examiner for the '584, '148 and the '336 you will notice that after august 2008 CM's name is not listed. While I have no doubt that CM eventually wants the patents revalidated, his absense at these interviews during the period of disharmony with TPL is telling. Based on the final rejections these interviews were important and obviously required someone very famliar with the patents to be there.

BTW thanks for the earlier response to my question.

In that case my initial reaction is that the unbridled emotions of frustrated shareholders have been used as a leveraging tool.

I also think that the absence of CM was the main reason for TPL being unable to resolve what appeared to be relatively simple issues with both the '584 and the '336.

thank you for the PM's. I'm also curious to know whether the seaforth chip was listed on the intellasys page last week given that CM stated that the project had been halted in jan.

I went to the colorforth website and I see that the link to the page outlining moore's conflict with TPL is gone. I don't read the board frequently so i'd appreciate it if anyone knows whether this is a recent development or not.

Also the intellasys webpage shows the seaforth chip on its front page. So it appears that its still being developed. Was it on the front page since last week?