Comments on: Who do you trust in the Internet age?

Every company, stock and product has a story and everybody tells it from their own perspective. In the Internet age, everybody's famous; how do you know who to trust? Here are five tips for determining who to believe.

[ptscdefender]

Sorry, I don't buy this excuse for not saying "mea culpa". Obviously, your feathers got ruffled, and deservedly so. You claimed, in your response to a comment responding to your previous article, that last year you had met with a board member of one of the companies you badmouthed, namely Patriot Scientific. Was your subsequent assessment of Patriot Scientific as a "disaster" based on the information provided by that board member? If so, would you have a problem identifying the board member in question? If not, what other information, presented by whom, provided you with a more convincing argument than the information provided by that board member? In other words, who did you trust? Or was it simply a case of sloppy, irresponsible journalism?

[LetsMoveON]

Mr Tobak.Please check back with PTSC next month .You might be surprised .Thank you.

[TobakWontComeClean]

You indicate that you learned to communicate in a "crystal clear" manner while a marketing executive, yet you seem to have left that skill behind based on this particular thread of commentary. First of all, you lump Patriot Scientific in with some "disaster" stocks. Then after some negative feedback, you "clarify" your inclusion of PTSC by saying that inclusion was based solely on its performance since its IPO, which took place over 10 years ago. When some remind you that while it has a timultuous history from a share price performance, you seem to be ignorant of or at least ignoring the developments of the last three years, which in the context of a CURRENT blog on performance clearly SHOULD HAVE been taken into consideration. You indicate that you are quite aware of PTSC's "story" as you had just last year been asked to and agreed to speak with one of its board members.

Then you further expound on this interaction with PTSC investors with today's offering, which while it doesn't specifically mention the company, you imply was effected by the comments you received back from PTSC investors. In it, you indicate that people shouldn't beleive everything they read, that they should consider the source, do DD, and use logic. Yet you continue to refuse to follow any of those rules with respect to clarifying what you clearly misrepresented about PTSC's current status.

What you should clarify, in order to be "crystal clear", is to note that PTSC has put over 300 companies "on-notice" that they infringe on PTSC's IP. You should also note that of those more than 300 companies, 44 of them have signed license agreements with PTSC and its partner. Of those 44, you should note that 5 of them (and affiliated entities), bohemoth's all, fought in court trying to avoid having to license, claiming the patents invalid or that they didn't infringe. Of those 5, 2 and a half decided to settle early and avoid protracted legal battles, and treble damage risks. Fujitsu paid over $30M for that right. Sony over $10M, and part of NEC over $15M. Furthermore, after a very successful Markman hearing in PTSC's favor, and after further maneuvering by the remaining infringers, all of them decided to settle just prior to going to trial. So the likes of Toshiba, Matsushita & JVC, and the remaining NEC entity, after a 2 year battle, decided they wouldn't win the court battle, and instead settled. Since the settlements in late December, another 10 companies have signed license agreements. While the first 25 license agreements represented over $214 MILLION in license fees, roughly half of which PTSC gets (the other half going to its partner TPL), the other 19 (including the settlements) have yet to be reported though approximately 16 of them will be revealed in the pending quarterly financial filing for PTSC. The filing represents what should be a watershed moment for PTSC and could well launch it past its IPO share pricing that you so derisively tried to reconnect it to in your piece.

These is just some of the "DD" and "logic" that comes from a variety of confirmable and independent "sources" that pass the "smell test" and have proven true over "time". Your refusal to include them to create a crystal clear view of PTSC, but instead to imply again today that somehow the objecting investor's views are somehow flawed shows your unwillingness to accept that you misrepresented PTSC by including it in your original piece, and that by continuing to do so, YOUR motivation and YOU as a source should be questioned. PTSC investors have justifyably done just that. Hopefully, your comment hasn't obfuscated the "value proposition" that PTSC really is.

[eman1717]

IN God We Trust... you know.... the saying on the dollar bills... PTSC up 20%+ since Tobak listed it as a "disaster" company.....

[67GTO]

Please Mr. Tobak, would you do me a favor? The next time you're going to write a disparaging article mentioning a publicly held company that that you yourself have done no due diligence on, (minus talking to one unnamed source), would you please let me know in advance before the article goes public? I would love the opportunity to invest in it before it shoots up 20+ percent, and still climbing, within days of your article going public.

Mr. Tobak, I'm sure you have a wonderful resume and many real accomplishments in your career. But you stepped in it this time. I've heard your reasoning now for what you wrote in your first article. Fine. But you hanen't learned. You didn't apply one of your 5 points in this article to what you wrote about in your previous article. Not one. You wrote an oversimplified article on publicly held companies without even applying your own very valid 5 points that you would have the rest of us do.

As a person with a presence in the industry and having this very public forum to spout your views, you should be much more careful in what you say. You have the power to positevely or negatively effect the share prices of publicly held companies, and the investments of thousands of people. Mr. Tobak, if you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. Apply your own 5 points to yourself before you spout off and possibly do damage to companies and thousands of peoples investments. You wonder why there are "ruffled feathers" out there, look in the mirror my friend. Look in the mirror....

[Wink Junior]

PTSC employees? Stockholders hoping some day to get that 80% loss back? Up 20% - sure, when your stock price is like $0.35 and you've been delisted, a 20% gain is easy - someone paid $0.04/share more to buy some.

Frankly, PTSC belongs on the list as an example of "startup" that really still is a startup but tries to pretend they're not, because they've been around for more than five years (although still losing money) and have some clients (although not enough to pay the bills.) I run into these all the time - survivors of the Dot-Bomb crash who think because they made it through that era and are still around, they're no longer a VERY high risk startup venture.

When their stock is listed on an exchange, they're making enough net profit to pay everyone's salaries plus more, and have a solid product and growing client base, then they get some credit. I, for one, am sorry to see the author cave under pressure and remove the list, just because desperate investors in one of the companies have a different opinion. If they were doing so well with that stock, they wouldn't be complaining about the listing in the article - they'd think, as I often do, "Good - I can buy more stock at a cheaper price." Personally, I like when companies I think are good long-term investments get bad press - keeps their stock affordable.

Methinks PTSC stock-holders doth protest too much.