Agoracom

Here is my latest effort to get information through Hawk. Im done with them:

Me:

Can the company at least confirm that they (TPL) are currently negotiating with companies regarding licensing our patents (whether or not such negotiations result in a settlement remains to be seen) as opposed to, licensing activity being on hold right now for some reason.

Ken:

There is no reason for the business to be "on hold." The pursuit of licensees continues.

Me:

Thank you for the response, but "the pursuit of licensees" is not necessarily the same as being in current negotiations. Being in current negotiations requires some positive response or at least some expressed interest from the potentially infringing company, whereas "the pursuit of licensees" could simply mean we are asking but no one is answering. Can you clarify if the distinction I have just made was what you intended or if there are currently negotiations taking place.

Ken:

Please do not over analyze our responses. The terms "pursue" and "negotiate" can be used interchangeably. However, on a broader issue please refrain from asking questions that request the potential disclosure of material non-public information. If there were a material change in the licensing activity it could not be disclosed selectively to you by responding to your e-mail inquiry.

Me:

Respectfully, the information flowing from the company is so sparse and vague that we shareholders have little choice but to analyze what crumbs we do get to pull out any and all information we can. Furthermore, I fail to see how asking a very general simple question about whether the company is negotiating with anybody, without asking for names, industries, amounts, terms, or if there have been any actual settlements, requires the disclosure of non public material information. Again, I did not ask if the company had reached any settlements, I just wanted to know if negotiations were taking place which may or may not ever result in a settlement. Finally, if you or the company does not want to answer my questions or believes it would be inappropriate then dont answer, but I do not need to be chastised by you for asking the question, particularly since I dont agree with you that it does require the disclosure of material information, and given how much we shareholders are being kept in the dark and given how much money we all are loosing on a daily basis with this stock. So apparently I am not going to get an answer to my original question because as far as I am concerned "pursue" and "negotiate" are not synonymous and apparently the company has no interest in increasing the level of transparency for the shareholders and does not care how low the sp goes. Thanks anyway, I (probably) wont be bothering you again.

I guess you guys will let me know if I overreacted or underreacted to Kens responses.