It seems the PTSC Board has lost its leadership position in my small realm.
 

A new trio is far, far, ahead in terms of contempt for the people who put them there, distortion or concealment of fact, failing to answer Yes/No questions, flawed logic, arrogance when challenged with facts and failure to communicate effectively, etc.

Oddly this new trio also consists of two males (I cannot bring myself to type "men") and one female.

One is obnoxious, arrogant and egocentric.

One is just the hapless person tasked to get messages to the public, but who has no clue as who the public really are and what they really NEED to know, and no sense of balancing communication time with importance of "news" items.

One is more interested in avoiding having numbers and metrics audited than in supporting shareholder concerns.

All three are centered firmly on their own careers and incomes.

This is just my observation. For the record I am unable to vote, but also not a felon or insitutionalized. Yet.

We can't, as I understand it, litigate for any infringement occurring after the patent expires, but litigation is still an option for infringment during the "look back" period. 

Remember also that there are allegedly many infringment notificatiins already in effect. Recall the "list" disputed between PTSC and TPL/Alliacense.

"35 U.S.C. § 286 Time limitation on damages

Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action."

"If a patent is infringed while it is enforceable i.e. before it expires, the patent owner can sue the infringer up to 6 years after the patent expires. This is important in a situation where the patent owner may not become aware of the infringement until after the patent expires."

What if PTSC is planning to get acquired by a company (or maybe Chuck Moore) with the desire and funds to squeeze the last drops out of the full MMP, not just the '336?  What if that deal is also planned to force TPL into Chapter 7 and then to purchase its assets, i.e. the patents of FLASH and the other 50% of MMP? 

What return on investment would the acquiring/surviving entity want for putting a couple of million dollars on the table?

The next 10-Q Quarterly filing is just a few days away (13th or 16th I think).

The next SHAM is or should be just a few months away.

See: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836564/000168316817000031/0001683168-17-000031-index.htm

In my experience these executive agreements get signed, put in the back of the virtual drawer (in this case next to Leckrone's virtual 'done deals' maybe) and left to gather dust. They only get taken out when something is about to happen.

Firing Cliffie after all this time seems unlikely, given what he knows and has witnessed. No severance clause can get around a sub-poena so it's a bit of a stand-off.

My guess is a buy-out or similar is looming. PTSC stock at around 4/1000ths of a dollar values PTSC at under $2M. A million gets you the majority AND ownership of 50% of the MMP.. The shareholders rejected the reverse stock split 9 months back, so it is reasonable to come at it from the other direction.

The clause about Cliff dropping the interim-CEO title but keeping CFO suggests a strategy leading to a new formal CEO but with Cliff Flowers staying around as CFO to file or shred documentation as appropriate.

7 years would be better.

I wish this attorney had represented PTSC for the litigation against TPL.