I've not read the book, and if "Putt's Law" is the fundamental principle upon which it's based, I'm disinclined to waste my time with it. I get the sense that the book isn't targeted at dinosaurs like me anyway. That said, a few points do, I think, deserve address:

Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand.

I suppose a snappy generalization will sell a book, but for the individual navigating a specific and concrete microcosm of the industry it's dangerous to rely upon that "law". Individuals can and do change hats as their careers progress, and sometimes engineers earn business degrees in order to advance.

The value to a consultant of each discussion is proportional to the information he receives, independent of any information he may give in return

Because information is my stock in trade, nothing is independent of the value of the information I provide to another in the course of conducting my business.

I measure the value of a discussion in dollars, not intangible information credits. I consider not only the time I invest in a given exchange, but also how that exchange impacts current and future profits. If a discussion and its present and future impact profit me more than my cost of participation, there is some profit to it, and if it profits me at or above my usual and customary rate for the time I've invested and the information I have provided, then it was sufficiently profitable.

A successful consultant never gives as much information to his clients as he gets in return.

Absolutely true, given that the objective criterion is "successful" and that the measure of the information is qualitative rather than quantitative. My best interests are served by keeping my clients happily dependent upon the services I provide and the knowledge whose product I provide to them. It is only in my best interests to refine my client's understanding of the problem domain if I must do so in order to justify my proposals. However, I am as free with low value information as the diner on the corner is with free refills of coffee, and for the same reason.

Of course a consultant gathers as much information as possible before offering a solution: Premature articulation is unprofessional and more likely than not to get you into trouble.

The second implication, well, kinda sorta but not really. A lot of the information clients throw at you is quartz, a mineral that often occurs in proximity with gold but of no significant value by itself.

Technical analyses have no value above the midmanagement level.

The folks on Mahogany Row don't have any need to know the policies and procedures that result in their mail arriving promptly each day, but somewhere down the corporate food chain is someone who regularly reviews and revises those policies and procedures, and below that is someone who spends his day as a supervisor ensuring compliance with them, and below that is the guy who knows that this specific piece of mail must go into that tote on its way to somewhere else.

The technical analysis is important only to the folks within the organizational unit(s) responsible for the qualities of the object analyzed.