abandoning the german sar case, page-11

I agree with Goosmurf, though I understand the frustration and disappointment associated with abandoning the SAR case. To my mind, NearMap is exactly the interim revenue provider that IPR needs as it plods through the interminable workings of the court system in the various jurisdictions where it has cases in progress.

My rationale for this view is that a lot of investors would view the IP assertion business as too speculative for their taste - or at least as taking 'too long between drinks' - so a business that can provide annualised revenue is exactly the thing required.

I take the point that NearMap is unproven in this area to date, but I have no doubt that councils, state and federal government agencies will increasingly see the savings and the revenue-raising potential of NearMap; a simple example being suburban councils wishing to check the state of 'curb maintenance' when people do renovations. Thanks to NearMap, they no longer need to send out a council officer to do so, saving potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in ratepayers' funds. In short, the applications of the technology are manifold and various, as a listen to Nixon's presentation on the website clearly indicates.

I'm not surprised to see a few disgruntled shareholders exiting after the disappointing verdict in the German court case (and the broken promise to return 50% of litigation winnings to shareholders!!) but I am a very strong supporter of the NearMap business and believe the first announcement of a major contract - especially if annualised revenue is forthcoming - should see IPR revalued sharply upwards.

'Them's my opinions. If you don't like 'em, I have others...' (apologies to Groucho).

DYOR

Gupper