Ann: Cleansing Notice, page-10

I speculate a potential deal is dependant on the full product package (cells and delivery method) together.
Imagine the opposite?
"We like the product, let's sign a licensing deal, do you own the patch"....
"umm, no"




Your entire imagined exchange makes no sense. I can't easily imagine an opposite to nonsense - I have to translate nonsense first into something. There is no product yet. If the nitwit hypothetical deal candidate you imagine asking your imagined question values signed licencing agreements (they value them) - so here's a different answer than "umm no" to the idiotic "do you own the product".

"We have a licensing agreement".

Unstated but implied (I say this for your benefit) a contract is a contract is a contract. Get the terms of it right and its enforceable (that's the point of a contract) and it makes for a good deal - don't and it isn't.

If you don't understand contract you don't understand the absolute basics of business. I think like most CYP holders your profoundly don't understand the notion of contract - it seems fuzzy to you.

CYP shareholders allow the terms of contracts to remain opaque - which is what has gotten CYP into difficulty in the past - how many renegotiations of terms with Fujifilm - opaque contracts are like blank checks - that is the problem.

The entire bloody value of the company could be contracted away by a single bad deal from a fool (that's a general statement about ASX directors capacity to stuff up with a contract error).

If the contract (the one I'm showing from an ASX announcement over three years ago) is worldwide and can be exercised because its well constructed there is no urgency - its only if it isn't that there is.