And here we go again....
100% wrong. Really. I suppose this goes back to my conjecture about the MOU with the J3 in Texas. That was when I suggest that it is POSSIBLE that royalties may be contingent on a future event. I suggested this event may be action at the USPTO, or possibly the SC action (Quantas).
Brian stated that an MOU is just some notes taken at a meeting between the parties. 100% wrong. MOU's are typically a non-binding agreement between parties that if certain events occur they should act/respond in a certain way - in my experience typically a planned teaming agreement (Space Shuttle program).
Others argued that a scenario as I suggested as being possible was actually impossible and would NEVER happen. Then, about a year and half later, it was revealed in a SEC filing that a license had been agreed where royalties were contingent on a future event. Exactly as I suggested as POSSIBLE. 100% correct.
So you might want to re-evaluate your memory bank about who was 100% right and who was 100% wrong. In the above scenario with the J3, I agree that my conjecture was wrong in that instance, but the basis on the conjecture - the possibility of royalties being contengent on a future event - was 100% correct.
Also, EVERY time I've offered conjecture I have provided a basis and solicited discussion. More importantly, I made 100% clear that it was simply conjecture. As with my recent posts, the intent was to generate discussion. You know, the intent behind having a message board.
Now I am continually attacked with this "100% wrong" crap that simply isn't true.
And even if I had stated conjecture depicting all basis as "absolute" (which I've never done unless backed by already-known facts), provided no basis for my conjecture (which I've never done), and then determined to be wrong, SO WHAT? It was CONJECTURE towards generating discussion and improving everyone's understanding of their investment. Again, the purpose of a message board (though IMO any conjecture should be backed by some basis reasoning).
Some here just don't get it. Their perceived purpose of this message board is to vent and to attack others who at least try to generate meaningful discussion. But alas, meaningful discussion remains absent. Even my latest conjecture only brought a couple of meaningful replies, and very little discussion. Instead, those who just don't get it go into attack mode. What purpose? What basis? Apparently not capable of discussion.
As for my latest conjecture, are you taking the opposing position that I'm 100% wrong and the PPS goes down from here? Are you suggesting that PTSC/DH getting their hands on half or all the "work product" isn't going to happen and if it did, it would NOT make a change to future prospects? Are you suggesting that a TPL/DL Chapter 7 is impossible, and if it were it would make no difference?
When you provide no response to conjecture and only come out guns blazing with a lie that the poster is "always 100% wrong", then that (previous paragraph) is what you are indirectly saying.
FWIW, and I end discussion about things other than PTSC.
And BTW, you have already been warned. And I'm to the point (thank you, well done!) where I honestly don't care about your or anyone else's feelings should I decide, with good reason, to ban. Got it?
SGE
