Ann: Commercialisation Milestone, page-68

Thanks for the considered response. Of course win/win outcomes are what everyone is looking for. If resume is important to have valid comment, I have an engineering degree and worked across various jobs/industries before finishing with 13 years in finance, including insto finance and 8 running my own company, which I sold a couple of years ago.

I will just say that all of ADO would be intensely aware that naming a big (potential) partner would be of benefit to us and our SP (at least in a sugar-hit short term), and would be advocated for if appropriate and/or acceptable to the other party. Given the party has not been named, you can assume the other party does not view it as reasonable or having 'minimal effect' on their best interests. I also think any benefit, presumably in SP appreciation, possibly credibility, would be short lived without a contract.

EV companies would be looking at all kinds of technological advantages, but not all companies can look at all things. Just because some people in other EV companies may be aware of ADO tech claims from seminars, conventions etc, means little in terms of whether there is a competitive advantage in being first mover on a tech. Other companies would have to do their own lengthy testing and validation process before they could use the same tech. So it remains of huge advantage, imho, to retain this as CIC for the EV company looking to get a jump on competitors.