Now, a very simple line of questioning that will no doubt be raised in the WA Court. If it were a simple case of taking/using SDL's IP [by questionable means and tactics], then why all the on-going design and feasibility work?
Which then raises the question, what value (the dollar amount being claimed as compensation) was the IP actually worth.
It appears that the SDL IP was worth very little, if anything. Otherwise, laying of the Port & Rail foundation stone would have occurred very soon after the Feb 25 contracts signing, no?
Any intelligent comments on this unfolding situation?
What thoughts on SDL's cash in the bank to fund the litigation occurring in WA? My understanding is, Burford are only funding the litigation with Cameroon and Congo.
