Ann: Collaboration with Little Green Pharma Ltd, page-98

Shame ‘opposing’ views are labeled as whinging, especially so when, arguably, quite valid.

From 2009 there has been one single ’commercial’ validation for OBJ tech which rather then being a company ‘maker’ has been a company ‘saver’, no arrival of P&G no OBJ in existence right now, imo.

That validation by P&G ‘allowing’ Glyn to retire ‘in the money’ has not helped long term RIs in any form or manner except to keep the company alive, fact.

That from 2009, despite many ripper announcements, OBJ has failed to bring any new player to the table, this from a bevy of market giants.

I believe on one occasion when asked why Jeff replied ‘that the results of clinical trials do not belong to us’, which I find unusual as is it virtually a case of; ‘we tried it, it doesn’t suit us and we will not tell you why’!!

Despite some great appointments in recent times this IP of OBJ has been picked over by P&G and some of the biggest players in the industry who have passed it up, players with massive R&D divisions and marketing clout.

Is the tech/IP still the same as it was ten years ago?, any practical lessons learnt from over the years to advance the cause?

In the interim to temper ones expectations is quite warranted as is to have opposing view points that are quite valid, imo.

This time around I believe RIs will not let the BoD of the hook so easily if things fail to progress in a timely manner, that is, these projects disappearing in the ‘ether’ with no explanations of ‘why’!.

I am reasonably confident that at some point a app will be commercialised, it has to be, from that point will the market need to ‘see’ how much revenue this will generate and how quickly before rerating the company, and again to be married up with some fantastic revenue from P&G, imo.

Most hopefully a company ‘maker’ actually is indeed on the cards after so long.