The handwriting is on the wall if you read what the new company specializes in and the discussion of preferred stock you would see that this company is going to take one commission and it's going to be the sale of the preferred stock to a third party if not them. At which time in the company will go private. Try to tell that ambulance chaser on the agra site this a year ago was one of the reasons they canceled my subscription over there.

Time is of the essence. I would like to thank those who have already contacted me. For those who haven't yet contacted me:

If you support Moore's plan please send me a PM through agora or to my personal e-mail (to those that have it). All you need to provide is a simple statement like the one below and the information requested. Please note that you are not being asked for any information relating to the number of shares that you own. It is not needed.

I, __________ am a Patriot Scientific Shareholder and I support the MOORE MONETIZATION PLAN OF REORGANIZATION DATED AUGUST 28, 2014

Your first, last name

City, State where you reside

e-mail address and or contact phone

Thanks,

Laur



I LIKE SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN KICKED OFF THE NUT SIGN SO NO WAY TO GET TO HER, IF LYOU HAVE HER EMAIL PLEASE SEND SGTUSMC@CENTURYLINK.NET

THANK YOU

think you earplug I did..

Although the Patent Act provides for a 20-year patent term, that term can be extended in a few ways. The most common avenue is through Patent Term Adjustment that is automatically awarded to patentees if the USPTO fails to meet its guarantee of timely examination. As the backlog of pending cases grew, so has the average patent term adjustment. More recently, however, the USPTO has moved to reduce the backlog and average pendency – that result is that PTA has also been significantly reduced — for the first time in several years, the average PTA is below 1-year. The time series below shows the average PTA for all utility patents granted since January 2005. The jump in PTA seen in 2009 was due to a legal change in how the term is interpreted. The second chart shows the percentage of patents that are awarded PTA – that figure is also trending down, but is still a troubling 70%.

: Cash, Weapons and Surveillance: the U.S. is a Key Party to Every Israeli Attack

am I seeing things??? the time is 10:55 and the only trade today has a volume of 666 is this market maker nuts or....???

I WELL JOIN YOU: WAS KICKED OFF THE OTHER BOARD.....

Who can be trusted and who can't

posted on Apr 11, 14 12:33PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]


I have been in communication with a lawfirm that is interested in looking into the ptsc situation regarding the current bod, former toxic funder and former insiders and board members. I did my best explaining the situation and they did their dd communicating to me there are no conflicts of interest regarding the parties I mentioned to them that may be involved.

This is no joke. There is information that the law firm needs to complete their dd. The info they are requesting is beyond my knowledge and historical perspective so I am asking for the leaders and old timers who want justice and possibly the seating of a new bod plus the potential to claw back funds from those who did not act appropriately at ptsc or tpl to get involved. I discussed this with the law firm so they know how I am trying to move this forward.

I have no interest in doing this in a vaccuum or by myself, for that matter, I would like to reduce my role and put more knowledgeable folks who have been hurt by ptsc and tpl's actions more than I in charge. I will stay involved and give guidance where I can regarding how and what may be needed by the law firm to decide to take the case. As I have said in the past, I have been successfully through a situation where a handful of shareholders did pursue action against a publically traded company and did end up with some level of success plus control of the re-orged company that now has a future and the potential for those that stayed the course to recoup their losses and turn a profit.

I would think that the next step is telephone communication with those that can be trusted so I can go into detail what the lawfirm is requesting.

So, to the board, how do I determine who can be trusted and who can't. PM me or state on this forum your thoughts but if you want this to go anywhere take action and communicate with me. I can almost guarantee that with the right information the lawfirm will jump at this case.

Thanks

What would anyone further require that this board of directors has but one thing in mind that being their monthly payroll. If someone would assure them that they could get $1 million or for that matter $500,000 or even hundred thousand dollars per infringer they would take it in a minute. Because it would ensures their payroll. Them not continuing with the (show and tell lawsuit) some months back should of told everyone that they were just covering their asses. And for those of you that don't believe there has been SEC violation I believe you're wrong for in my opinion there has been.
One must remember this is the best job/ position that any of these people (board members present and former CEOs) have ever had. What They have done in the past will continue in the future, that being what is in their personal best interests.
If you don't believe that the regulatory people will get involved right letters to the state's attorney general they love getting involved.

Retiring SEC Lawyer Crucifies His Employer: "It's A Cancer" Working On Behalf Of The "Bankster Turnpike"

By Tyler Durden

Created 04/08/2014 - 13:33



Tyler Durden's picture [1]
Submitted by Tyler Durden [1] on 04/08/2014 13:33 -0400

Bloomberg News [2]
Broken System [3]
Goldman Sachs [4]
goldman sachs [5]
HFT [6]
Mary Schapiro [7]



.








in

Share
.




.


We wonder: why does the truth about the broken system, as witnessed and experienced by individual employees, always wait until said employee is about to depart their employer or just after? Obviously that is rhetorical. However, it is worth mentioning, because in the latest such revelation, a retiring SEC trail attorney veteran, James Kidney, who had been with the agency since 1986 and retired this month, just crucified his now former employer for doing precisely all those thing that outside critics - notably Zero Hedge - have accused the most co-opted, clueless, corrupt and criminal regulators of doing. Only he said it in a way that not even we could have phrased.

From Bloomberg [8]:






The SEC has become “an agency that polices the broken windows on the street level and rarely goes to the penthouse floors,” Kidney said, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by Bloomberg News. “On the rare occasions when enforcement does go to the penthouse, good manners are paramount. Tough enforcement, risky enforcement, is subject to extensive negotiation and weakening.”



Kidney said his superiors were more focused on getting high-paying jobs after their government service than on bringing difficult cases. The agency’s penalties, Kidney said, have become “at most a tollbooth on the bankster turnpike.”

Wow: another "erudite" former cog in the systemic wheel goes off the reservation and gets all tinfoil bloggy on us. He goes on:






In his speech, Kidney also hit the agency for using misleading statistics to showcase its enforcement efforts. The SEC should focus on the quality of its actions, rather than try to file as many as possible just to tout its record to lawmakers and the media, he said.



“It is a cancer,” Kidney said of the agency’s use of numbers. “It should be changed.”

His name was James Kidney.






Kidney said in the interview that he will always be an SEC loyalist and was trying to offer constructive criticism that could help the agency. He said he wasn’t singling out any specific cases or officials in his comments.



“I don’t think we did a very aggressive job with all the major players in the crash of ’08,” he said, noting that as a civil enforcement agency, the commission does not need to prove its cases beyond a reasonable doubt like the Justice Department does. “The SEC has a lower burden of proof and we should be pushing the envelope a bit.”

You mean, pretending to regulate the same people where SEC staffers wish to work will no longer fool most of the people all of the time? The horror... The horror.

A quick reminder on the Goldman wrist slap deal with the SEC, where Kidney was part of the initial, if not final team.






Kidney, who was part of the initial team that was building the Goldman Sachs case, pressed his bosses in the enforcement division to go higher up the chain. He later took himself off the team after being given a lesser role, according to people familiar with the matter.



In particular, the people said, Kidney argued that the commission should sue Tourre’s boss, Jonathan Egol. Kidney also wanted to bring a case against Paulson & Co. or some executives at the hedge fund, which helped pick the portfolio of securities that were underlying the Abacus vehicle and then bet against it.



The SEC ultimately decided not to sue Egol, the Paulson firm or any individuals from the hedge fund.

Yes, it was all the not even 30 year old Tourre's fault. All of it. And the person who dared to point out this criminal disdain for justice by the SEC? He was demoted by the most corrupt of all: Mary Schapiro.

The punchline - the SEC is a regulator only for optical purposes. It's true role is not to shake up the status quo.






In his retirement speech, Kidney noted that he had been “involved in a high-profile case or two” and said he had gotten a message from above not to take too many risks.



“I have had bosses, and bosses of my bosses, whose names we all know, who made little secret that they were here to punch their ticket,” Kidney said. “They mouthed serious regard for the mission of the commission, but their actions were tentative and fearful in many instances.”

Simply said: disgusting and pathetic - both the sad truth about the US market "regulator", which most were already aware of, and that an SEC employee has to wait until the day he quits to express it.

Oh, and if anyone still wants to know why the perfectly legal parasitism of HFT has turned off the retail investors for the last time, and why everyone knows the market is rigged - it is not the vacuum tubes. Nope. It is the criminals at the SEC who made it legal for 25 year old math PhDs to rig stocks in the first place, and who allowed the TBTF banks to make the marketplace into their own personal no risk, all return piggy bank. Them, and of course Congress - because when the day comes that all those idiotic trades blow up and the banks have to pay the penalty, why - they just get another taxpayer bailout, courtesy of America's democratically elected "representatives."

The Ontario Securities Commission announced a settlement with Agoracom Investor Relations Corp. resulting in a $150,000 fine and sanctions against two company officials, including a ban on investing in, or trading stock of, any of Agoracom's clients.

Friday's settlement came after the OSC levelled a revised statement of allegations this week against Agoracom, its vice-president of operations Apostolis (Paul) Kondakos and company founder George Tsiolis.

The case arose last April, when the OSC alleged that much of the chatter on Agoracom's popular online penny-stock discussion forum was the work of its own employees using more than 670 fake names to talk about companies' shares. Some employees were required to post at least two anonymous messages a day and were told their pay would be docked if they did not meet this target.

It was later revealed that Mr. Kondakos monitored the site's "private messaging" service and intercepted messages between users "for the purpose of gathering information about reporting issuers and issuers in which he was personally invested."

"In my opinion the sanctions are appropriate … to the conduct at issue," OSC Commissioner Carol Perry said when approving the settlement.

The sanctions also require the company to post a link to the settlement on its website for six months so that the public is aware of the case before doing any business with the company.

In reaching the settlement agreement, the OSC said it took Mr. Kondakos's and Mr. Tsiolis's "dire" financial situation into account. Litigator Tamara Center said "staff is of the view that a total of $150,000 in monetary payments is significant and reflective of the severity of [the officials']conduct."

The two men started acting against the public's interest in September, 2006. In March, 2009, it was revealed that some of the postings on Agoracom's forum were fake, and management posted a notice acknowledging the issue and promising it would not continue. The OSC found that the fake postings continued until July, 2009.

Earlier this week, the company's former chief financial officer was sentenced to two years in prison for writing himself unauthorized cheques from Agoracom accounts, totalling approximately $160,000.

Mr. Kondakos and Mr. Tsiolis were found to have no connection to those actions, but they had to hire legal counsel because they were defrauded, and the cost of doing so was factored into their settlement with the OSC.

Ms. Perry said the two men accepted the severity of the charges against them and noted they took the case seriously, showing up at all hearings.

With files from Janet McFarland

Every executive and board member of a public company has a number of legal obligations to the regulatory people and to the stockholders. If in your opinion any board member or executive of this company has knowingly not performed those obligations that is exactly what you should report to the appropriate authorities in this case the SEC.
If you feel that any statute or law either state or federal has been violated you should report that to either the local authorities or to the FBI.
If you believe that the local media would have an interest in the story you should provide them with any facts and or your opinions so that they may investigate.

This guy has more problems than he is likely aware of. How many people know a “practicing attorney”, or so he says he is that spends half his day on penny stock boards. He banned me three times and had the audacity to send me private e-mails suggesting what I could do to get back on agoracom. If he knew anything about computers he would realize you don't have to be a member to be on that site.
Like many small-town attorneys in a one man firm their ego allows them to believe that they are Clarence Darrow. His advice should be looked at with a lot of skepticism in my opinion.
As I have said before I have now with my attorneys, had five contacts with the SEC and gave the name and address of the person that telephoned me from the SEC. I will again list her name and address if anyone wishes to send her information that they believe she should have. You can also telephone her but you will get a recording and they will explain to you that anything you wish for them to look at has to be in writing.

Ms. Katz
c/o SEC
100 S st. NE
WashIngton, DC 20549-0213

From agora by 1200…… I hope that PTSC is being investigated by the SEC. If anyone gets through to Ms. Katz of the SEC as mentioned in Ron's reply to Rosewood today perhaps she might be interested in listening in to these cowards' excuse for a shareholder meeting dated 3-26-14

From agora by you guessed it ronran… I don't have the SEC's phone number or address handy, but the name of the lady there who is supposedly looking into PTSC is "Ms. Katz". You can go to the SEC's website, and there is a telephone number provided for general call-ins --- it then gives directions as to how you can get to Ms. Katz. Dated 3-26-14
Best wishes.
As I wrote on this form a few weeks ago he would find a way to take credit for the contact with Ms. Katz, it should be noted that I gave him the name and phone number and address of Ms Katz when he led me to believe that he would assist in my correspondence with her. After she called me and asked to have me tell him and Brian to put it in writing he instead told me to have her call him!!! I told him not likely… Leopards don't change their spots folks. PS: someone with a presence on Agora should post this in its entirety, I know they'll delete it for seconds. What a jok

This guy has more problems than he is likely aware of. How many people know a “practicing attorney”, or so he says he is that spends half his day on penny stock boards. He banned me three times and had the audacity to send me private e-mails suggesting what I could do to get back on agoracom. If he knew anything about computers he would realize you don't have to be a member to be on that site.
Like many small-town attorneys in a one man firm their ego allows them to believe that they are Clarence Darrow. His advice should be looked at with a lot of skepticism in my opinion.
As I have said before I have now with my attorneys, had five contacts with the SEC and gave the name and address of the person that telephoned me from the SEC. I will again list her name and address if anyone wishes to send her information that they believe she should have. You can also telephone her but you will get a recording and they will explain to you that anything you wish for them to look at has to be in writing.

Ms. Katz
c/o SEC
100 S st. NE
Washington, DC 20549-0213

For your information we just responded to the SEC for the 5th time.

to: Ms Katz
c/o SEC
100 S St. NE
Washington, DC 20549-0213

information you wish to mail to her use the above address..

no she bought it at .08 and .10.....the same as I did....small man

no I have played OTC stock for 40 years, and have had very good luck. been in and out of PTsc more times then i can count...beem good to me, my younest girl had 500,000 share and sold at 2.17 some time ago..

Future is not looking bright. Alot of wishful thinking.

1. The street is fully aware of this stock . Alot of the run up for these type of penny stocks is due to anticipation leading up to a verdict or good news is generally greater than the run up when the actual news is announced.

2. The PR department is non-existant with either of these entities. PR is crucial for a stock of this nature.

3. This clown act has literally evaporated 300 million dollars over the previous years. They have fought with each other, sued each other and one entity is bankrupt.

4. Settlements are not transparent and are made to keep the clueless board in receipt of its much needed annual salaries.

5. These entities are fighting seasoned, high powered corporate lawyers with a contingency ambulance chaser. The staff lawyers no longer on board due to lack of funds. (A company that collected $150 million with nothing to show)

6. Going forward this company is finished when the patents are finished. They have squandered millions on a variety of now defunct businesses. They have shown a complete lack of business acumen to do anything other than collect token licensing fees.

7. So enough of this wish list. This is over.
posted on the NUT site.....by other but he maybe right on...

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/labor/170659-patently-unjust



This should be sent to every law maker you can think of....

Wolf, if this company doesn't do a reverse split within the next few months my name is Paul Revere!.

District Courts Selected for Patent Pilot Program



(click to enlarge)

Fourteen federal district courts have been selected to participate in a 10-year pilot project designed to enhance expertise in patent cases among U.S. district judges. The pilot, mandated by Pub. L. No. 111-349, begins in most selected courts in July.

To be eligible to participate, courts had to be among the 15 district courts in which the largest number of patent and plant variety protections cases were filed in 2010, or be district courts that adopted or certified to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) the intention to adopt local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases.

From among the eligible courts who volunteered for the pilot, the Director was required by statute to select three district courts having at least 10 authorized district judgeships in which at least three judges have made a request to hear patent cases, and three district courts having fewer than 10 authorized district judgeships in which at least two judges have made a request to hear patent cases.

The patent pilot project courts are the:

Eastern District of New York
Southern District of New York
Western District of Pennsylvania
District of New Jersey
District of Maryland
Eastern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Western District of Tennessee
Northern District of Illinois
District of Nevada
Central District of California
Northern District of California
Southern District of California
Southern District of Florida


In the pilot program, patent cases filed in participating district courts are initially randomly assigned to all district judges, regardless of whether they have been designated to hear such cases. A judge who is randomly assigned a patent case and is not among the designated judges may decline to accept the case. That case is then randomly assigned to one of the district judges designated to hear patent cases.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management will help implement the pilot. The Committee is encouraging the pilot courts in the project to use their case assignment system to ensure fairness in the distribution of the court’s workload and provide for the assignments of additional civil cases to those judges who decline patent cases.

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research arm of the federal Judiciary, is creating a special webpage to assist the patent pilot courts with sample patent case local rules and forms, and FJC patent law publications and case management materials for patent cases. It also plans to provide specialized patent law and case management training for the pilot courts, resources permitting. Under the statute, the AO and the FJC will submit periodic reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees over the course of the pilot, with the first report due mid-way through the pilot.

As to the USPTO and any other public (services) offered by any form of United States government state local federal the dollar somehow always becomes first. You pay taxes for support of government services and then you pay additional for the government service and if money is not a problem (corporate interests) you get it done faster than the next guy. If you think this is off-topic cancel the damn thing.

Anyone that believes that this group of board members are not going to do everything in their power to retain the most lucrative positions they have ever had, just doesn't understand human nature. Their primary interest is going to continue to be retaining their current position as board members. And they will assure that there is adequate cash to maintain their lifestyles. If anyone believes that this group of leopards are going to change their spots you are wrong that just is not human nature. To make what I'm saying very clear the board members are doing exactly what you would do if you were in their place. That my friends is human nature.
The likelihood of the members of this board or any other board getting together and commencing proper action is extremely unlikely. One individual may very well take the appropriate action but that is also very unlikely. You see those of us that play in penny stocks fall into two groups those of us that do it for fun and challenge and those of us that do it because they believe they one-day well hit a jackpot.
We have one chance and that is to get a strong experienced person or persons on that board. Without it anything in the future is going to be to the benefit of the existing board members.

Boy Wolf, I don't understand this at all it appears to be a concession speech ????? . How are you reading it?? If?

You in my opinion are absolutely correct, my question is how does one keep the "NUTS" from AGOR from relocating here? I have been kicked off their site numerous times for reasons unknown to me I currently am afewdollars over there.

As to Wolf I have for many years thanked him for his efforts and opinion and I hereby do it again. Thank you Wolf.

THANKS WOLF, YOU KNOW SOME NUT WILL COPY YOUR POST TO THE NUT BOARD, WHEN IT HAPPEN DO NOT GET MAD, JUST KEEP POSTING ON THIS SITE A LOT OF US ARE WITH YOU AND THANKFULL FOR YOU. IF I CAN HELP I THINK LYOU HAVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS...GARY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)


did anyone hear about Oct 29,1987?????

http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/PWC-2009-Patent-Litigation-Study.pdf

The German Supreme Court (BGH) in its recent Siemens application decision[1]will give software patent critics new ammunition to oppose IPRs for software patents. The decision regarding computer-implemented inventions seems to tear down all common (German) barriers for software patents. From the critics point of view it further monopolizes software and computer products. However the decision just settles the long-lasting dispute between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the German Supreme Court about the specific conditions of patentability of software thus leading to more predictability and certainty.

Up to now, the German Patent Office (DPMA) as well as the German Patent Court (BPatG) and the German Supreme Court (BGH) have been very cautious allowing patent protection for software patents. With respect to Article 52(2) under b EPC, and, of course, the corresponding Article 1(3) of the German Patent Act (PatG), the patentability of software was strictly limited by the technical nature of the whole invention. In a nutshell, computer programs were only patentable, if they have a (characterizing) technical function within the invention, i.e. the software programs must induce a technical effect outside the computer on which they are executed. Although this principle appears very straight, its application by the German Patent Office, the German Patent Court and the German Supreme Court resulted in a very confusing case-by-case assessment of the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. Many unexpected turns led to a situation in which even experts could not predict with sufficient certainty whether a computer implemented invention has a technical character and would pass the examination through the patent application process and the potentially following sequence of appeal before the German Patent Court and the German Supreme Court.

The practice of the European Patent Office (EPO) differs significantly. According to the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Part C, Chapter IV, 2.3.6, computer implemented inventions must also have a technical nature. But contrary to the former German legal situation, this requirement was interpreted more loose. To meet the requirement of a technical nature it is sufficient that technical considerations led to the particular implementation of the invention in a software-hardware system. As a result, it was possible to get a patent for a computer-implemented invention via an application before the European Patent Office that never would be granted by the German Patent Office. So no surprise that the validity of those patents was highly contested before the German Patent Court and the German Supreme Court.

This divergence from EPO practice was undesirable and the German Supreme Court does now away with this. According to the recent decision the whole technical nature of a computer-implemented invention is no longer crucial for the patentability. It is sufficient that “the execution of a software program which implements the technical solution is specified by technical facts outside the computer on which it is executed or that the solution is precisely that the software is so implemented, that it orientates to the technical specification of the computer.” Therewith the presupposition of technical nature of the computer-implemented invention is actually put away. Considering the former (German) legal discussion on the presupposition of technical nature, the decision is really groundbreaking, yet its impact on the examination during the patent application process will be limited.

The main criticism of the new doctrine concerns the second clause of the sentence since any programmer regularly designs his programs to the particular computers for which the program is written. Taken in the literal sense of the words the new doctrine would therefore lead to an unlimited widening of patentability of computer programs. Admittedly, there is a potential wideness and abstractness of computer programs that could lead to an adverse effect to technical innovation, if there are no reasonable restrictions to the patentability of computer programs. But those restrictions should be the same as to common inventions: First, the computer implemented invention must be new and a result of an inventive step. There is no place for weak patents which only cover pseudo inventions. Second, the claims shall be reasonably restricted to a clear problem and its tangible solution. There is also no place for merely abstract descriptions and conceptual considerations of a general difficulty. Considering this, the German Supreme Court has acknowledged the problem of abstractness of the claim in question, and the Court expressively orders the former instance to take it also into consideration during the examination of the presuppositions novelty and inventive step.

In principle, it is a good thing that the presuppositions of novelty and inventive step are thus re-established and strengthened within the examination of patentability of computer-implemented inventions. The well-known interpretation of these categories allows a more precise evaluation of what is really patent-worthy than an obscure concept of technical nature which is hardly understandable even for patent professionals.

Stephan Dorn





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] the patent relates to a process where, in the context of the patent application, structured documents (here in particular HTML or XML documents) are dynamically generated on a host computer which communicates with a client and is preferably configured in an “embedded system” architecture. Requirement data from the client is received at the host computer and request parameters are extracted there from. The request parameters are mapped by a control module onto a command set of an architecture-specific interface module of the host computer. The structured document is then generated dynamically, using at least one template document which contains service takers. The service takers are executed in a runtime environment of the interface module, with reference to the mapped request parameters, and define contents or structure of the structured document after they have been executed. The dynamically generated structured document is then transferred to the client, see for full analysis in English

As I am sure you are aware the following proposal is being circulated throughout the web. I am the owner of several hundred thousand shares of your company and I wish for you to understand that I am a supporter of the proposal and would like to see a corporation take action before the shareholders determine that they must independently take action. Thank you








SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL
“Resolved:
That the shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s governance documents (certificate of incorporation or bylaws) to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders.
Supporting Statement:
Our Company is incorporated in Delaware. Delaware law provides that a company’s certificate of incorporation or bylaws may specify the number of votes that shall be necessary for the transaction of any business, including the election of directors. (DGCL, Title 8, Chapter 1, Subchapter VII, Section 216).
The law provides that if the level of voting support necessary for a specific action is not specified in a corporation’s certificate or bylaws, directors “shall be elected by a plurality of the votes of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote on the election of directors.”
Our Company presently uses the plurality vote standard to elect directors. This proposal requests
that the Board initiate a change in the Company’s director election vote standard to provide that nominees for the board of directors must receive a majority of the vote cast in order to be elected or reelected to the Board.
We believe that a majority vote standard in director elections would give shareholders a meaningful role in the director election process. Under the Company’s current standard, a nominee in a director election can be elected with as little as a single affirmative vote, even if a substantial majority of the votes cast are “withheld” from that nominee. The majority vote standard would require that a director receive a majority of the vote cast in order to be elected to the Board.
Some companies have adopted board governance policies requiring director nominees that fail to receive majority support from shareholders to tender their resignations to the board. We believe that these policies are inadequate for they are based on continued use of the plurality standard and would allow director nominees to be elected despite only minimal shareholder support. We contend that changing the legal standard to a majority vote is a superior solution that merits shareholder support.
Our proposal is not intended to limit the judgment of the Board in crafting the requested governance change. For instance, the Board should address the status of incumbent director nominees who fail to receive a majority vote under a majority vote standard and whether a plurality vote standard may be appropriate in director elections when the number of director nominees exceeds the available board seats.
We urge your support FOR this important director election reform

Take a look at 11803 and look at WHO you replyed TO....some one took my post off.... it was the result of a lawsuit against InvestorsHub in which it named approximately 30 people who had not told the truth about the company that was bringing the suit, did not look very good for this board so someone removed it... and he

then turn the page

http://www.thinkbigworksmall.com/mypage/player/tbws/23088/1012627

http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=902

Ron, is this possible....from other board.....
Lip service and NOW action
posted on Jan 30, 10 08:25AM
A few months ago, I came across a shareholder proxy from NuCor. I have retyped part of that proxy and changed it to reflect PTSC. I am not an attorney, so I defer to such experts on our board to take a look and determine, what may need to be changed, edited and/or deleted to make this work for our shareholders.

Resolved: That the shareholders of Patriot Scientific Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Board of Directors initiate the appropriate process to amend the Company’s governance documents (certificate of incorporation or bylaws; to provide that director nominees shall be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting of shareholders, with a plurality vote standard retained for contested director elections, that is, when the number of director nominees exceeds the number of board seats

Supporting Statement: In order to provide shareholders a meaningful role in director elections, our Company’s director election vote standard should be changed to a majority vote standard. A majority vote standard would require that a nominee receive a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected. The majority vote standard in board elections would establish a challenging vote standard for board nominees and improve the performance of the individual directors and entire boards. Our Company presently uses a plurality vote standard in all director elections. Under the pluarity vote standard, a nominee for the board can be elected with as little as a single affirmative vote, even if a substantial majority of the votes cast are “withheld” from the nominee.

In response to strong shareholder support for a majority vote standard in director elections, an increasing number of the nation’s leading companies including, Intel, General Electric, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Morgan Stanley, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot have adopted a mority vote standard in company bylaws or articles of incorporation. Additionally, these companies have adopted director resignation policies in their bylaws or coporate governance policies to address post-election issues related to the status of director nominees that fail to win election. Other companies including our company, have responded only partially to the call for change by simply adopting post-election director resignation policies that set procedures for addressing the status of director nominees that receive more "withold” votes than “for “votes.

We believe that a post-election director resignation policy without a majority vote standard in the company bylaws or articles is an inadequate reform. The critical first step in establishing a meaninful majority vote policy is the adoption of a majority vote standard. With a majority vote standard in place, the board can then consider action on developing post-election procedures to address the status of directors that fail to win election. A majority vote standard combined with a post-election director resignation policy would establish a meaninful right for shareholders to elect directors, and reserve for the board an important post-election role in determining the continued status of an unelected director. We feel that thiscombination of the majority vote standard with a post-election policy represents a true majority vote standard.


Any nominee for director in an uncontested election who receives a greater number of votes “withheld” from his or her election than votes “for” such election shall promptly tender his or her resignation for consideration by the Governance and Nominating Committee. The Committee shall evaluate the director’s tendered resignation taking into account the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and shall recommend to the Board whether to accept or reject such resignation. In making its recommendation, the Committee may consider, among other things, the effect of the exercise of cumulative voting in the election. The Board shall act within 120 days following certification of the stockholder vote and shall disclose its decision and the reasons therefore in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Any director who tenders his or her resignation pursuant to this principle shall not participate in any committee or board consideration of it.


Non-employee directors shall be paid standard directors’ fees of $60,000 annually, in $15,000 quarterly payments. The Lead Director shall be paid an additional $30,000, for a total of $90,000, in $22,500 quarterly payments. The chairmen of the Governance and Nominating Committee and the Compensation and Executive Development Committee shall receive an additional $6,000 each, in $1,500 quarterly payments. The chairman of the Audit Committee shall receive additional $12,000, in $3,000 quarterly payments

It is not insider information if it was said in a public form. It is quite possible that they did not allow any electronic transmission from the meeting room..

Nominees Sought for National Medal of Technology and Innovation
Deadline for nominations is May 29, 2009
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking nominations for the nation’s highest honor for technological achievement. The USPTO administers the NMTI program on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. The deadline for nominations is May 29, 2009.

The nominations can be made for an individual, a team of up to four individuals, a company or a division of a company. The honorees are chosen for their outstanding contributions to the nation’s economic, environmental and social well-being through the development and commercialization of technological products, processes and concepts; technological innovation; and development of the country’s technological manpower.

>> Click here to learn more about nomination guidelines and to submit a nomination

Letter to Shareholders from Patriot Scientific President/CEO Rick Goerner
Thursday February 19, 4:05 pm ET



CARLSBAD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Patriot Scientific Corp. (OTCBB:PTSC) today issued the following letter to all shareholders.
ADVERTISEMENT


To all shareholders and stakeholders of Patriot Scientific, the purpose of this letter is to provide an update to you on TPL’s activities associated with the MMP™ Portfolio.

In this update, I will summarize; 1) our announcement regarding recent activities in the German Patent Office, 2) the status of the MMP™ Portfolio re-examination process, 3) pending litigation and 4) future MMP™ Portfolio licensing activities. While I understand that I will not address all of your questions, I will try to present, and clarify these points for you. Please understand that these are complicated issues to discuss and that all public communications regarding the MMP™ portfolio must be reviewed, and approved for release, by many parties. We are required to do this to insure that no information becomes public that would encumber, or otherwise adversely impact, any activities regarding negotiations with prospective licensees, discussions with the USPTO or other regulatory agencies, or in any other legal proceeding.

Recent German Nullity Proceeding Victory by TPL

On February 2, 2009, TPL/Alliacense announced that the German Federal Patent Court in Munich affirmed the validity of DE 6,903,356 8T2, the German counterpart to EP 0,786,730. The affirmed German Patent and its EP counterparts cover technology utilized in a majority of microprocessor-based products manufactured and sold today. EP'730 is the European counterpart of the original MMP Portfolio application filed by TPL in 1989, which resulted in seven issued US patents.

While the action, initiated by Deutsche Telecom, to nullify the German patent was positive in the favor of our patent, the decision is expected to have no impact on the ultimate result of the USPTO re-examinations underway on four of the seven MMP™ patents.

To clarify, the German proceeding was the counterpart of the USPTO patent re-examination process.

Update on re-examination activities at the USPTO

Beginning in 2007, a series of reexaminations was initiated against four key patents in the MMP™ Portfolio (the ‘148, ‘336, ‘584 and ‘749). As we have stated previously, this is a time-consuming, detailed process that can take several years. No one can forecast the progress, or the eventual outcome, of the re-examination processes, but we remain optimistic for a variety of reasons, including those outlined in Dr. Choate’s paper with a link, included in my June 16, 2008 letter to the shareholders, which can be found on Patriot’s website.

We regret to see the amount of speculation that goes back and forth among many of our shareholders regarding the uncertainties of this process. Further, I am certain that attempts at direct communications by any of you with anyone at the USPTO office will only serve to create confusion and potentially even delay the examinations. It is our opinion that any comment by us prior to a final completion of any of the examinations will only serve to confuse the process. As soon as anything is definitive, I assure you we will communicate that to our shareholders in a timely fashion.

We remain confident that the USPTO will re-affirm the strength of the MMP™ Portfolio whenever its final actions are determined and made public.

Litigation

As you are aware, four of the MMP™ patents remain the subject of on-going litigation initiated by several non-US companies. Of the original group of three Taiwanese companies, one- ASUSTeK, has opted to settle as announced in December 2008. Recent Court actions to determine the venue for a potential trial (Northern District of California (NDCA) or Eastern District of Texas (EDT) have been resolved with the suit remaining in the Northern District of California. This decision should accelerate the trial schedule as the EDT calendar is generally more congested than that of NDCA.

On December 1, 2008, we, TPL and Alliacense, Ltd. were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California by Barco, N.V. The Barco case seeks declaratory relief that its products do not infringe enforceable claims of the '584, '749 and '890 patents.

MMP™ Portfolio licensing activities – TPL and Patriot have announced six new licensees since the 2009 fiscal year began June 1, 2008 with ASUSTeK, Rockwell Automation, Roland Corporation, Audiovox, Robert Bosch and Hoya Corporation.

As TPL and Alliacense reviewed at our Annual Shareholders meeting in October, the sweeping scope of applications using MMP™ Portfolio design techniques continues to encourage the world's leading manufacturers of end user products from around the globe to become MMP™ Portfolio licensees. Over 50 global companies from the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have licensed the MMP™ Portfolio technologies, including many industry leaders such as Fujitsu, Hewlett Packard, Kenwood, Mattel, Nokia, Philips, Sony and Toshiba. We expect that TPL/Alliacense will continue to successfully pursue, and close, new licensing transactions over the life of the MMP™ Portfolio.

I look forward to your constructive feedback and will attempt to clarify any other issues that can be disclosed to the extent of our ability under applicable contractual, or regulatory, constraints.

Sincerely,

Rick Goerner
President and CEO
Patriot Scientific Corporation


Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, patent litigation, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Moore Microprocessor Patent (MMP™) and Alliacense are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL). PTSC is a trademark of Patriot Scientific Corporation. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.




Contact:
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Angela Hartley, 760/547-2700 ext. 102

http://people.forbes.com/search?ticker=PTSC

Ron, as always you are the realists attempting to educate the dreamers. I have read that the CEO of this company has annual salary/bonus of $500,000. And that the Board of Directors are somewhere around $150,000 annually. I've had the privilege and misfortunes of being seated on a number of corporate boards two of which are international corporations. Although I was reimbursed for travel/lodging and entertainment expenses I have never been paid $150,000 as Board compensation. I can assure anyone that reads this but this particular group will assure themselves substantial benefits even when the time comes that they're going to have to borrow money to pay themselves.

As to the acquisitions/partnerships/joint ventures or whatever you wish to call them if any one of them succeeds it will be an absolute shock to me this company as in my opinion one chance of succeeding at being that the patents are substantially upheld and that it outside interests purchases the company. By the way if you see the company going for a reverse split you may wish to consider the possibility of a buyout is forthcoming.

Ron, the reason I started this was to ask where Brian has been?

I have been removed from the Agor, Board on two occasions. Neither time I saw it to be sensitive toward any individual although it was critical of the company. Its a board for some to gather socially and to repeat one another's thoughts

Would appreciate any information on Brian.

Take a look at the Holocom Media Room under April 24 were it is talking about PTSC, you will fine a girl show...only PTSC