Share
1,655 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 44
clock Created with Sketch. 17/02/17
22:57
Share
Originally posted by BazTokyo
↑
Fair question, but legally the questions of good faith and contractual intent come into play. If the intention by pg or any other company were to lock down the technology through a contract without any premise of implementing relying on secondary patent coverage to block other entrants to the market, that would certainly be a breach of good faith and violate the contractual principles and intentions as understood by Obj. Any legal cases ensuing would presumably be served in the US and damages alone would be pitched higher than the off handed 35c sp targets bandied around. Considering they have S.Mellor handling negotiations and considering his history related to PG, he would have been able on one hand to assess any such likelihoods were they to exist, and on the other, have been in a strong position to formulate and review the contracts. That alone would support the standing that the intention by Pg was to implement the technology and in so benefit Obj financially instead of the supposition otherwise. Further the long contracted period in force reinforces the underlying intention to provide protection to pg via monopolization of obj resources in order to maximise financial gain through product sales for the period. Which is contrary to the supposition.
Expand
I am not saying there is ill intent - just that there model works to protect them.....they get exclusive rights - they do all the right things & tick the boxes, with a soft launch etc....- but looking at progress it appears they have their doubts too, no global rollout, slow progress.......it feels like they are waiting for something better and are afraid to fully commit.....technology moves so fast - yada yada yada
(20min delay)