"2. It never sat right with me that we did a technology transfer (January 2015 quarterly) without signing a deal. Now they have our technology and despite not being licenced to use it can do what they like to try and reverse engineer a way around the patents. I hold grave concerns on this front and hope I am wrong. Sure we have patent s but you need money to defend them!"
Amen, Cash, and a big gripe I have had for a long time. Businesses - especially Goliaths - suck the blood of smaller businesses, just because they can. Look how we got screwed by the Canadians on the DiaSource funding. Easy money for them.
POC1 learns from our tech, all the while dangling the carrot, and IF they're to do anything questionable with the IP of a company living hand to mouth, how hard would it be to defend it with an army of lawyers and the luxury of years and tens of millions to spend in arbitration?
All of this is just speculation, of course, but I believe we could/should have played a stronger hand with POC1.
In fact, there is absolutely no reason why we still can't.
I can't think why we could not have been involved in the first iteration. There's been more than enough time. It is enough for Anteo to be cynical about whether we'll be involved in the next. The LEAST we could demand, after today's development, would be for a commitment on paper (MOU, however you want to call it) and POC1 being named. Or, we walk out on them into the arms of a competitor. Sound reckless? I don't think it is. It's about respect and so far it seems to me we have none.
This is about hard-nosed business and so far it's been all give (including our intellectual advantage) from us and none from them. Doesn't matter how big POC1 is..... they can't dictate terms to a suicide bomber.
ADO Price at posting:
6.2¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
