Patriot Scientific der Highflyer 2006
Seine inhaltslosen Postrings bestätigen mich jeden Tag ein wenig mehr in meiner Meinung. Kann einfach nicht sein, dass ein mit so viel Intelligenz gestrafter Recht bekommt.
Jetzt hat er sich ja schon auf kurze Textfragmente verlegt, aber selbst da erkennt man noch sein überdurchschnittlich fundiertes Wissen.
Hätte er sich tatsächlich die Mühe gemacht diesen Thread mal durchzulesen, dann würde er wissen, dass meine Einstiegskurse weit unter 20 Cent liegen. Aber man darf nicht zu viel erwarten, auch eine solche Intelligenzbombe kann ja mal was überlesen.
Mathou, Du hast das gut zusammen gefasst, jetzt geht es in Texas um die Wurst. Das kann so oder so ausgehen. Ich bin aber eine Optimist und vertraue a auf den amerikanischen Nationalismus und b auf die Anwälte der vielen Firmen die den Sachverhalt bisher prüften, dann entschieden, lieber zahlten als sich verklagen zu lassen.
Auch wenn Flirty hier immer propagiert, es wäre billige zu zahlen als die Gerichtskosten zu tragen, so stehen 2-5 Mio. USD Gerichtskosten, Zahlungen von durchschnittlich 10 Mio. gegenüber. Mehr ist darüber nicht zu schreiben.
Weiter positiv stimmt mich der Umstand, dass trotz der momentanen Unsicherheit (und Anleger hassen Unsicherheiten) sich die Aktie stabil bei rund 50 Cent hält.
Trotzdem, wer mit diesem Geld das Studium seiner lieben Kinderlein finanzieren wollte, der sollte sich aus solchen Spekulation raushalten – nicht erst seit heut, sondern ganz prinzipiell. Man kann hier ganz viel gewinnen, aber eben auch verlieren.
Dir einen schönen Tage, lass Dich nicht verunsichern. Du bist ja auch schon so lange dabei, also nicht auf der Zielgeraden schlapp machen auf die andersbegabten hören.
Grüße Abenteurer
Das Ergebnis, also sein letztes Posting, ist für jeden sichtbar nachzulesen und hat mir ein "ignore" gebracht (lol hatte ich noch nie, danke) sowie ein nicht begründetes Kursziel; wie immer eben.
Das mit dem Frust hält sich bei mir in Grenzen. Es "hätte" und "Wäre" natürlich lohnend gewesen zwischendurch auszusteigen. Aber wer eben "hätte" und "Wäre" im Kopf hat wird zwangsläufig an der Börse seinen Frust erfahren. Ich gehe da für mich anders vor und kann daher meist sehr entspannt agieren.
Was PTSC angeht bin ich nicht verunsichert. Nassie hat ja den Link mit den Jobs eingestellt. Wer sucht schon Mitarbeiter wenn in naher Zukunft weniger oder keine Aufgaben mehr zu erledigen wären?
Wer auf Verschwörungstheorien steht kann sich natürlich ein anderes Bild machen, vielleicht so:
"NEC und alle anderen licensees hängen in Wahrheit unter einer Decke mit Alliances und PTSC. Ziel ist es einzig die Anleger auszurauben. OTC eben"
Mods und alle anderen, der obige Satz ist nur fiktiv damit man sich mal Gedanken machen kann wie unsinnig das ist. NEC hab ich im Übrigen namentlich genannt weil es japanisches Unternehmen ist. Wer mal bei einem japanischen Unternehmen gearbeitet hat, ich damals bei NEC, weiß das die anders ticken. Auch von daher ist die oben genannte Fiktion unmöglich.
In naher Zukunft steht ja so einiges an:
- Entscheidung zum Markman Hearing etwa Anfang Juni
- Bekanntgabe neuer CEO (Meiner Meinung nach wird Pohl bis dahin, er gibt seinen Posten am 4.6 auf, auch nicht mit besonderen News aufwarten wollen)
- Zahlen zum Geschäftsjahr (das Geschäftsjahr endet am 31.05, Zahlen 30 bis 45 Tage danach)
- und das Entscheidende, Texas, kommt dann im Herbst (So die J2,2 bis dahin nicht lizenziert haben sollten)
Wir biegen also so langsam auf die Zielgerade ein. Bin nun schon über 2 Jahre dabei und für mich gibt es derzeit überhaupt keinen Grund schlapp zu machen. Dennoch danke für Deine Unterstützung!
Gruß
Mathou
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/525705
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/552309
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/552312
....besser als Fußball.
Grüße Abenteurer
...tiefer kanns ja hier derzeit eigentlich garnicht gehen.
Quelle www.worldofinvestment.com
Und ganz zart deutet sich ja auch gerade ein kleiner Aufwärtstrend an.
Several assertions have been made relating to alleged infringement of U.S. patent No. 5,440,749 and related dependent patents (the so-called Moore Patent Portfolio) relating to microprocessor technology and co-owned by Technology Properties and Patriot Scientific (now joined in the new company Alliacense). Because of sales by Philips of TriMedia microprocessors in the U.S., Technology Properties and Patriot Scientific in the past offered to settle for USD 22 million but did not want to substantiate their case. Philips refused the offer and is of the opinion that its microprocessors did not infringe the patents involved.
Patriot Scientific approached a number of Japanese PC companies, such as Sony, Matsushita, Fujitsu, NEC and Toshiba. Intel, as supplier of Pentium chips, came to their defense. In 2004, Sanyo asked Philips for assistance in their defense. Philips explained that it does not believe that the Philips microprocessors infringe. Recently, Intel, which produces similar microprocessors to those that Philips does, took a license from Technology Properties and Patriot Scientific for an amount of USD 10 to 25 million. In addition, Bosch and Agfa Gevaert recently sent a letter to Philips indicating that they had been approached by Alliacense for alleged infringement by products incorporating Philips microprocessors and asking for indemnification. Philips Semiconductors is receiving questions from more customers about the Moore patents. Recently, Alliacense approached Philips Consumer Electronics again to present their claim against microprocessors used in products from both Philips Consumer Electronics and Philips Medical Systems. Because the patents pertain to microprocessor technology, Philips Consumer Electronics and Philips Medical Systems are requesting indemnification from their suppliers, including Philips Semiconductors.
Alliacense primarily approaches companies such as Sanyo, Bosch, Agfa Gevaert, and Philips Consumer Electronics that manufacture finished products incorporating microprocessors, relying on patent claims that allegedly cover the combination of microprocessors with other components. Although Philips Semiconductors is generally not liable for infringement by the combinations, Philips Semiconductors could be liable in case their products implement all features of one or more of the Moore patent claims. Besides from indemnification requests by customers, liability could also arise from Alliacense directly if they would decide to approach Philips Semiconductors (risking exhaustion of their patents. However, Alliacense like their predecessors declined to discuss a license on the chip level, keeping their focus on higher value products.
Several manufacturers have recently entered into license agreements with Alliacense, including Fujitsu, HP, Sony, apparently not protected by their customer status of Intel and AMD.
NXP B/V, et al. · F-4 · On 4/23/07 · EX-10.1
http://www.secinfo.com/dVut2.u3zd.1b.htm
Posted by greeneyes111 on May 29, 2007 at 8:21AM
In response to Re: Wolf and Kidd something new on pacer...eom by ease2002
That is what I saw too. It states:
Transcript Proceeding Claims Construction Hearing on 5 /3/07. Judge T John Ward. 5/28/07
It looks as if we will be seeing it soon.
all IMO
Have a great day,
A couple of posters over on Yahoo! are spreading hints that a former Intel chief (Andy Grove?) is gonna be the new CEO; I really don't know where that's coming from, I can't find a trail. Just something to make the day a little more interesting.
spectrum.ieee.org/apr07/4989
Q&A With: Moore's IP Manager
By Elizabeth Svoboda
We talked with Mac Leckrone, who manages IP licensing for Silicon Valley's second most famous Moore—Charles Moore, whose inventions figure in almost every modern microprocessor. In the past year, Leckrone has made a mint for his firm and for Moore by licensing Moore's patents to a baker's dozen of major manufacturers
)PHOTO: IntellaSys)
Caaption....
Mac Leckrone is an intellectual property expert at Technology Partners Limited, generally known as the TPL Group, a technology development and licensing firm in Cupertino, Calif. His deal-making acumen made headlines last year when TPL started cashing in on its ownership of patents to technologies that figure in almost every microprocessor manufactured in the past decade. The asset has proved spectacularly lucrative for TPL and Patriot Scientific Corp., in Carlsbad, Calif. The companies are equal owners in a joint venture that combines their interests in a series of microprocessor patents known as the Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP) Portfolio, named after the inventor Charles Moore. In 2006, the TPL Group sold licenses to Agilent Technologies, Casio Computer, Fujitsu, HP, Kenwood, Lexmark International, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Seiko Epson, and Sony, and earlier this year they added Funai Electric and NEC.
Questions n' Answers....
IEEE Spectrum: How did you first become involved with Charles Moore?
LECKRONE: Chuck Moore and TPL got acquainted in the late 1980s. Moore wanted an environment where individual inventors would ultimately end up with ownership and control over what they had done, so TPL’s function was to protect the fruits of their research.
Why did the patent portfolio have divided ownership in the first place, and how did Patriot and TPL come to a joint ownership agreement?
After the early work in the 1980s, some of the inventors went their separate ways, taking their interests with them, and some of those interests eventually came to be owned by Patriot Scientific. It was clear that TPL couldn’t run a licensing program the way it would want to with divided ownership, so we spent a tremendous amount of energy and time negotiating to bring the interests back together.
What are the most important technologies in the portfolio? How are they integral to the products that major electronics firms are manufacturing?
The 20 000-foot view is that these technologies produce higher performance, lower cost, and lower power consumption microprocessors, so they solve problems that everyone wants to solve. The U.S. 5809336 patent, for instance, is an on-chip CPU clock and an independent input/output clock, which allows the CPU to be as great as it can be without being shackled by low input/output speed limits. The U.S. 5784584 patent allows chips to fetch multiple instructions in a single clock cycle, which reduces power consumption and processing time. Technologies like these have become the basis of the way microprocessors are designed today. Virtually every device that contains a microprocessor uses these technologies—from the mouse that is sitting a foot away from you, to the computer that’s telling me I have e-mail, to the ventilation system that’s pushing in the air I breathe.
What is your overall licensing strategy—how did you successfully negotiate licensing agreements with marquee companies like Intel and Advanced Micro Devices?
Traditionally, licensing has been a business that’s handled by lawyers and handled contentiously—you sue your prospective licensees, and that’s how you get them to come to the table. From a business point of view, that’s wasteful and not very effective, so we do what we can to change that equation. We devote a tremendous amount of resources to providing our customers with technical data that demonstrates that our technology is being used widely across their product lines. We don’t put them in a position of having to take our word for it—we do detailed analytical work comparing the claims of the patent to the inside of their product. We also have a dedicated team of people that respond to their questions in writing, immediately. The portfolio licenses are not inexpensive, so it’s not a small decision to make. These companies want to make sure they’re making the right decision, and we want to do everything we can to assist them.
Another part of our strategy is to create motivation through a tiered pricing structure—early licensees pay less than later licensees. The companies that can get through the decision-making process in a relatively entrepreneurial and unbureaucratic way will realize the fruits of being first or second or third, but not tenth. We always say, “By not purchasing a license, you’re making a decision that the higher price is okay with you.” That’s not a threat. It’s just a reality. We just don’t want there to be any surprises in the future.
The individual corporate culture plays a big role in whether companies decide to avail themselves of being an early entrant, or to wait until there are 100 licensees. You see a huge company like Fujitsu or HP making an excellent early decision, and then you’ll see others not doing so. Some companies have the idea that getting ahead of the curve is the way to go. But we also respect a company’s decision to evaluate, and then to wait—or not to act at all. We can only hope that the senior management and the shareholders understand the impact of those kinds of decisions.
Licensors are often portrayed as bad guys in the world of innovation. Is that reputation justified?
It’s almost become a naughty word to be labeled as a licensor, but what the patent system is really all about is creating a world that enables the little guy, the inventor, to protect his work and fund continued development. In the late 1980s, Chuck and the TPL Group made large investments and took substantial risks, and now we’re plowing the return on that investment right back into his latest developments. It’s frankly disturbing to hear people denigrating the efforts of the individual inventor—there have been many irresponsible remarks made by people who ought to know better.
What’s ahead for the TPL/Patriot partnership?
The MMP Portfolio licensing program has, I think, proved its mettle. We expect a lot of licensees to come on board this year, because they see the issues. And then there’s a certain crowd that will just wait, and they’ll pay a lot more. We’re looking forward to that because at the end of the day, what we’re doing is funding an array of product development. That’s our cycle of success.
Binnen einem Monat 10000 % auf 0,20
hahaha
Ich habs auch, scheint mir aber das ich es derzeit nicht veröffentlichen kann bzw sollte. Das Protokoll stammt von wolfpackvoltare vom Agora Board.
Wens interessiert schickt ne BM an mich.
Gruß
Mathou
Chairman's Notes from the 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation
The 2007 annual meeting of shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation was held on April 27, 2007, at the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California. Attendance was estimated at approximately 225. Informal feedback from many shareholders after the meeting reflected a generally upbeat and positive tone.
Business Meeting. The business portion of the meeting focused on the two issues which had been presented to stockholders in the proxy notice for the meeting. Proxies had been received for approximately 86% of the total number of outstanding shares. After tabulation of the votes on the first issue, the appointment of KMJ | Corbin & Co. as independent auditors for the company was ratified. On the second issue, the five members who have served on the Board of Directors during the past year were also reelected as proposed in the proxy statement: Helmut Falk Jr., Gloria Felcyn, Carlton Johnson Jr., Jim Turley and David Pohl. It was announced that a full tally of the votes will be published in the company's annual report on form 10-KSB that will be filed with the SEC in August, 2007, although as in the past, the results can be obtained before that date from the Secretary of the company.
Pohl Remarks. Chairman, President and CEO David Pohl then adjourned the formal business meeting and was the first of several speakers in the program that followed. He acknowledged receipt of a letter that was said to represent a summary of questions asked by shareholders holding approximately 56 million shares. Pohl indicated that many of the questions in the letter related to topics that would be addressed during the presentations at the meeting. He said an effort would be made to respond in a couple of weeks following the meeting to questions not covered during the presentations. (See Note at end of this Summary.)
Pohl began his remarks by stressing two words: "Common Goal." He stressed that he and the rest of the board members definitely share the frustration of many shareholders with the current market price of the company's common stock. The common goal of everyone involved in the company is to see the share price increase. Increased share price would not only reward the retail shareholders, but it would also help achieve another corporate goal, which is to get PTSC stock out of the bulletin board category and become listed on a national exchange such as AMEX or NASDAQ. Both exchanges have listing requirements that include share prices of three dollars or higher.
Pohl's comments also covered the topic of activities related to possible mergers and acquisitions or joint ventures. A merger or acquisition transaction with another company might be one way to accomplish getting listed on a national exchange. Discussions in October and November of 2006 with a privately held company that was a merger candidate broke down over the issue of valuation. There are informal indications the other company may want to rekindle discussions.
He also indicated that a subsequent transaction involving another company, Holocom Networks, would be described later in the meeting during a presentation by John Burns. Mr. Burns is the turnaround specialist now running the joint venture he formed with Patriot Scientific to engage in the business formerly conducted by Holocom. It was pointed out that a typical merger or acquisition may involve several months of initial screening and identification of candidates, several months of due diligence review and negotiations, plus more time for final document preparation and closing of the transaction. In other words, mergers and acquisitions are typically a time-consuming process.
Pohl referred to his intent to retire as president and CEO on June 5th as previously announced in a press release. He reconfirmed that it is time to bring in a new CEO with appropriate experience, vision, energy, plus industry and investment banking contacts to take the company to the next level along its corporate path. Pohl stated that he will continue to serve as chairman of the board and will provide support to assure that there is an orderly transition as the new president and CEO takes office. (Jim Turley was announced as the new CEO on June 4th.)
Addressing the topic of compensation for members of the Board of Directors, Pohl pointed out that the company has a very active board. This is partly due to the fact that the company has maintained a lean office staff while handling with the many challenges that have been successfully dealt with since June of 2005. He cited a few representative examples: 1) Gloria Felcyn as chairman of the Audit Committee working tirelessly with the financial team in successfully dealing with challenges provided by the financial restatements during 2006 and to the; and 2) Carl Johnson serving on several committees and continuously acting as liaison with attorneys representing the company in litigation matters plus serving as co-representative of the company along with David Pohl on the management board of Phoenix Digital Solutions. Mr. Johnson's latter capacity was never intended to be secret, and any disclosure deemed untimely was unintentional and inadvertent.
Jim Turley has provided expertise as chairman of the technology committee of the board to help evaluate various opportunities, and Helmut Falk is an active member of the compensation committee and the executive committee. Recently the board members have also attended to matters involved with costly and time-consuming activity to assure compliance with the various requirements of the Sorbanes-Oxley legislation, including the accelerated filing status of the company and assuring that the company meets prescribed standards for appropriate internal controls.
Noting that the licensing activities related to the company's jointly owned patent portfolio would be discussed later in the meeting, Pohl commented on the current status of other technology owned by the company. He said it has been decided that it would not be practical to proceed to develop the remote wireless charging device for which a patent application is currently pending. A report obtained from an independent consultant concluded that using the technology as described in the application would take approximately 31 years to charge two AA batteries.
Also, what originally appeared to be promising discussions regarding a potential joint venture in China regarding the Ignite chip have dried up. Although there currently is no ongoing R&D regarding the Ignite chip, consideration is being given, among other things, to a feasibility review of the company's patent on ground penetrating radar technology and the possibility of combining it with more recent technology plus perhaps the Ignite chip.
Swartz Remarks. Eric Swartz arrived from Atlanta to accept an invitation to speak at the meeting. He is one of two principals in the financial group that began providing funding for Patriot Scientific in 1997 and continued to do so until the last convertible debentures were retired in 2006. They are the largest shareholder in the company, and he firmly stated that they have never shorted any shares or warrants of the company although they have the right to make investment decisions and sell shares like any other shareholder. Swartz was complimentary of the accomplishments of the Patriot directors and management in the turnaround of the company accomplished since 2005.
Dwelling briefly on the patent portfolio licensing activities, Mr. Swartz had good things to say about Dan Leckrone and the TPL organization. He also expressed his confidence and belief in Patriot Scientific, including positive comments about the likely future of the company regardless of the outcome of the ruling to be issued in connection with the Markman hearing in the Texas patent infringement litigation.
Holocom Networks. The next speaker was John Burns, who used slides as he explained the background for the foreclosure transaction in which Patriot Scientific acquired the assets of Holocom Networks, Inc. Burns is a former corporate attorney with an engineering background who shifted his focus to entrepreneurial interests, including finance and corporate turnarounds. He now serves as president and CEO of Scripts Secured Data, Inc., a joint venture he formed with Patriot Scientific. The new company utilizes the assets, including intellectual property, and some former employees of the failed Holocom Networks company. The new business venture uses the Holocom name (Scripts Secured Data, Inc., DBA Holocom Networks).
Mr. Burns stated that Holocom and its products for secured communications pathways are approved for use by the National Security Agency and all branches of the military. He now conducts the business with a team of 15 employees as compared to the 50 that operated the former company. An interest in a non-core enterprise acquired in the foreclosure was sold to former principals of the failed company for cash and a note totaling $400,000, with a 10% equity interest retained by the SSDI/Patriot Scientific joint venture. Burns closed five of the original seven offices, significantly reduced operating expenses, and initiated an incentive program consisting of stock options and a bonus pool based on net income to motivate and ultimately reward employees who had accepted reduced salaries to join the new company.
Burns said preliminary unaudited results indicated that SSDI/Holocom had become profitable upon reaching monthly revenues of approximately $250000-$300000 after its first 2 1/2 months of operations. Based upon current activities and projections, he said with appropriate disclaimers that he expects the company he is running to stay profitable and achieve revenues of approximately $4 million in their first 12 months of operation.
TPL Presentation. Dan Leckrone, chairman of the TPL Group, was the next speaker introduced by Mr. Pohl. Leckrone described the TPL Group as a global intellectual property development and management company consisting of TPL, Alliacense, and Intellasys. They have over 200 employees and are headquartered in over 32,000 square feet of prime office space in Cupertino, California. The TPL group has about 30 employees and utilizes some 40 outside lawyers in providing support for the entire corporate organization, with its core competency being intellectual property development and litigation management.
Alliacense carries out the TPL licensing programs, with a rapidly growing staff that currently numbers 30. Alliacense also receives support from Intellasys, which has about 150 employees constituting a resource of outstanding technical expertise. About 40 of them have Ph.D.'s and another 80 have masters degrees. Intellasys has eight design centers and three overseas sales offices. Its core competency is in semi-conductor devices, memory management and control, including applications for networking and security.
Mr. Lekcrone then cautioned the audience to be aware of the fact that our present U.S. patent system is under attack. The threat is very real. The movement is well organized and heavily funded by large firms who are behind a string of pending cases that would seek to tear down our patent system as we know it today. He said TPL is determined to be proactive in attempting to defend the system by filing "friend of the court" briefs in pending cases and in launching a legislative information program. He encouraged everyone to follow the legislation pending in Congress and to be active in communicating with congressional representatives and leaders to increase public awareness and defend the current system.
Licensing. Mac Leckrone, president of Alliacense, was the next speaker. Alliacense is the licensing entity of the TPL group that manages the MMP patent portfolio that is jointly owned by Patriot Scientific and in The TPL Group. His highly informative presentation started with an explanation of his organization and how it conducts its business. He described the process of acquiring various products that utilize microprocessors and then taking them apart to identify components likely to be infringing on the MMP portfolio. His slides showed examples of cameras, an amusing shot of a popular toy "undressed" to show the technology inside, ATM machines, and point-of-sale machines among others that are part of some 200 various products that are analyzed each month. He stated that his group has already met with several automobile firms and suppliers, with that industry being a major focus this year.
A significant part of the Alliacense informative slide presentation involved the revelation by Mac Leckrone that approximately 485 companies have been put on written notice that they are likely infringing on one or more patents in the MMP portfolio. Over 300 of those companies have revenues exceeding $1 billion per year, and over 220 of the companies put on notice have responded. Alliacense conducted 265 customer meetings starting in January of 2006 through the time of this presentation. They met with 81 companies, which resulted in 16 licenses being signed in the 22 industry sector licensing categories as of the time of this presentation. The presentation was very well received.
Question and Answer Session. The meeting proceeded with a question and answer session, some of which included the following:
- Pohl reconfirmed that the board and management is as puzzled and frustrated by the share price level as other shareholders, that the company is absolutely not manipulating the market price of its shares as some have questioned, and members of the board are bullish about the future of Patriot Scientific. In answer to a question as to whether any board members have sold shares within the past six months, the answer was "no."
- One of the goals of the company is to get out of the bulletin board status and become listed on a major stock exchange. Pohl met with a representative of AMEX several months ago to discuss possible listing, and he also has reviewed requirements for NASDAQ. The market price of PTSC shares must reach the threshold to meet listing requirements, such as three dollars per share to be listed on AMEX.
- The Board of Directors is aware that a reverse stock split may be a strategy to be considered to achieve an increase in the share price. However, such action would not be prudent in the absence of adequate assurance that ongoing business developments would be sufficiently positive to keep the shares trading near or above the new market price achieved by the reverse stock split. Such action is not being considered at the present time.
- The number of shares and warrants currently held by the Swartz/Lincoln interests are disclosed in public filings with the SEC. See the proxy statement of the 2007 annual meeting for the latest information as filed.
- The board is aware that some shareholders would prefer that the company conserve its available cash by not paying dividends to shareholders. However, there is another body of shareholders that welcome the payment of dividends. As stated in the publicly announced dividend policy, the board will always consider prudent cash management and alternative uses of funds in light of business and market conditions when reviewing the question of whether to pay dividends at any given time.
- The Board of Directors and management completely agree with sentiments expressed by shareholders that the Patriot Scientific story is exciting and should be getting widespread attention. Pohl sponsored a conference call of Patriot Scientific's public relations and investor relations consultants to discuss the subject with several influential shareholders. The answer for now was summarized by John Radewagen of the Hoffman agency at the annual meeting: reporters generally write articles based upon newsworthy events, and the Patriot Scientific story, while quite interesting to all of us, is not regarded by media reporters as a reportable event. Pohl and Radewagen confirmed that ongoing activities involve providing influential industry and media representatives with background information so they will be familiar with the Patriot Scientific story when reportable events occur.
- Pohl and Johnson had been in New York several times in the past six months to meet with various investment bankers and acquaint them with the Patriot Scientific story. Even though the current share price is not high enough to meet standards for investment by institutional investors, the company is laying the groundwork for the future.
- Executives of both TPL and Patriot Scientific expressed optimism that the forthcoming ruling by the by the federal judge in Texas pertaining to the Markman claims construction hearing will be favorable for the TPL/PTSC claims applicable to the MMP patent portfolio. However, as with any legal proceeding, there can be and are no advance assurances of the outcome until the ruling is announced.
- Pohl reiterated his belief that the outlook for Patriot Scientific is positive even if the Markman hearing ruling is not as favorable as expected or desired. He repeated that the company has millions of dollars of available cash in the bank, has no long-term debt, current liabilities of less than $200,000, and has a small staff. All of these factors could be leveraged in a positive way for future business opportunities.
Note: As a result of the depth of the various presentations and responses to shareholder questions prior to the close of the 2007 annual meeting of shareholders, management of Patriot Scientific was advised by the company's corporate attorney that all questions that should be answered were answered. It was also management's desire that all Patriot Scientific shareholders should have a publicly available summary of information disseminated at the annual meeting. The notes that appear above were prepared by David Pohl and are being published on the Patriot Scientific website for that purpose. Recording of the proceedings was not allowed, and in the absence of such a recording the foregoing notes reflect a good faith effort to provide a general summary. Shareholders and investors are cautioned that this summary by its nature is incomplete, may contain errors and omissions, and should not be relied upon for making investment decisions.
The following applies to statements made at the 2007 annual meeting of shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation and during the program that followed, and to the informal notes that appear above summarizing the meeting and the program that followed:
Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, market trends, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, results of patent litigation, technical development risks, and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): June 5, 2007
Patriot Scientific Corporation
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)
Delaware 0-22182 84-1070278
(State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation) (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
CARLSBAD CORPORATE PLAZA
6183 PASEO DEL NORTE, SUITE 180
CARLSBAD, CA 92011
(Address of principal executive offices)
(760) 547-2700
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-k filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (See General Instruction A.2. below):
o Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
o Pre-commencement communication pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
o Pre-commencement communication pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (127 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
--------------------------------------------------
Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
Effective as of June 5, 2007, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the “Company”), David H. Pohl, will retire from the positions of President and Chief Executive Officer and James L. Turley, currently a director of the Company, will be the Company's new President and Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. Turley, age 45, has been a director of the Company since February 2006, and is Chairman of the Technology Committee of the Board of Directors. Mr. Turley is an acknowledged authority on microprocessor chips, semiconductor intellectual property, computers, and silicon technology. Until August 2006, Mr. Turley served as the Editor-in-Chief of Embedded Systems Design, a global magazine for high-tech developers and managers. He also served as Conference Chairman of the Embedded Systems Conferences, a series of electronics design shows. In addition, since August 2001, Mr. Turley has managed his own technology consulting and analysis business, Silicon Insider. From 1999 to 2001, he served as Senior Vice President of Marketing for ARC International, a microprocessor intellectual property company based in the UK. Mr. Turley has authored seven books on microprocessor chips, semiconductor intellectual property, computers, and silicon technology. He has served as editor of the prestigious industry journal Microprocessor Report (a three-time winner of the Computer Press Award), and is a frequent speaker at industry events. Mr. Turley also serves on the board of directors and/or technical advisory boards of several high-tech companies in the U.S. and Europe.
In connection with Mr. Turley’s appointment as President and Chief Executive Officer, and also commencing on June 5, 2007, the Company entered into an Employment Agreement with Mr. Turley for a one-year term (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, Mr. Turley is to receive a base salary of $225,000 per year and is eligible to receive an annual merit bonus as determined in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors. Also pursuant to the Agreement and on the date of the Agreement, Mr. Turley received incentive stock options to purchase 400,000 shares of the Company’s common stock and non-qualified stock options to purchase 1.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock. The Agreement also provides for Mr. Turley to receive customary employee benefits, an automobile allowance, and reimbursement for reasonable lodging and commuting expenses for the first six months of the term of the Agreement.
The description of the Agreement herein is only a summary and is qualified in its entirety by the full text of such document, which is filed as an exhibit hereto and is incorporated by reference herein.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
(d) Exhibits
10.1 Employment Agreement dated June 5, 2007, between Patriot Scientific Corporation and James Turley.
2
--------------------------------------------------
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf of the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
Patriot Scientific Corporation
(Registrant)
Date: June 8, 2007 By: /s/ Thomas J. Sweeney
--------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Sweeney
Chief Financial Officer
Die haben es tatsächlich geschafft die Website zu aktualisieren.
Ich frage mich wann die große Einkaufswelle einsetzt. Als erstes kaufen sicher die Familien und privaten Pensionsfonds der Anwälte die am Prozeß beteiligt sind. Vor September sehe ich das allerdings noch nicht. Bis dahin gehört die Bühne ganz Bert & Co. Ich werde auch weiter nachkaufen, ist einfach ein Geschenk jetzt noch mal so billig an die Aktien zu kommen.
Ohren steif halten!
Grüße Abenteurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD. and
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL
CO., LTD., ET AL.,
Defendants.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-494 (TJW)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific
Corporation’s Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions (#222).
Defendants NEC and Toshiba do not oppose this motion. As for the other defendants, the plaintiffs have agreed to amend their proposed Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions to correspond to the claim charts provided to the defendants in December 2006. With this understanding, the Court
finds that the plaintiffs have shown good cause to amend their preliminary infringement contentions and that the defendants will not be prejudiced. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Case 2:05-cv-00494-TJW Document 258 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
Nach meinem Verständnis bedeutet das, daß das Gericht erlaubt, die Zahl der Chips, die gegen Patente verstoßen, im Sinne PTSC´s stark zu vergrößern.
Also die Strategie der defendants zu unterlaufen, was auf weitere , gleichartige Verfahren hinausliefe.
Schätze dies als sehr positiv für PTSC ein.
Nur meine Meinung.
http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/message/557872
New Pacer --- Not Markman ...
Posted by ease2002 on June 13, 2007 at 9:51AM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD. and
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL
CO., LTD., ET AL.,
Defendants.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-494 (TJW)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Technology Properties Limited and Patriot Scientific
Corporation’s Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions (#222).
Defendants NEC and Toshiba do not oppose this motion. As for the other defendants, the plaintiffs
have agreed to amend their proposed Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions to correspond
to the claim charts provided to the defendants in December 2006. With this understanding, the Court
finds that the plaintiffs have shown good cause to amend their preliminary infringement contentions
and that the defendants will not be prejudiced. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Case 2:05-cv-00494-TJW Document 258 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 1