Hi Twinvest,Firstly, thank you for sharing your research on this...

Hi Twinvest,
Firstly, thank you for sharing your research on this forum. I have found your posts very informative and the information you provide I would never have found :)

"Some have pondered why it has been mentioned that after the next signing then others would follow quickly in succession - Could this be the reason - Maybe the costs to undertake the Freedom to operate analysis are significant and some of the smaller companies wait for a larger cashed up company to complete the Freedom to Operate analysis which inturn gives the green light for other companies to follow??"

I agree 100% with your point above. I work in a medium tier finance company who were looking for a new software platform for 3 different facets of the business which intergrate. The decision to look and test a number of platforms started 5 years ago and only late last year was it decided to proceed with the total package. The main reason was that none of the majors had fully tested it and it considered too costly to be the first company to do so as you would have to pay for the alterations to the standard pack. They also dont have the personnel to negotiate a great deal with the program company and would have to pay consultants to do it for them. These costs have to be budgetted into the project when doing a cost / benefit analysis.

Whilst I understand there are major differences between software platforms and mix and go you have to appreciate from the testers capacity that there would be huge costs associated with getting it wrong, both in rolling back to the old system as well as a the potential for serious damage to your brand.

I also note from posters in the past 6-8 weeks that the batch testing was due to be completed in Nov-Dec. If you take into consideration a close down for Christmas and most starting back at work this week then it is safe to assume that if the company in question wanted to proceed they would need to put it to the board of directors which would require a presentation. Most boards only have monthly meetings. The board may ask for more information which may / or may not be able to be provided then and there. Say they cant provided it then, they are given till next board meeting to provide the additional info.
The board agree to use mix and go and during the decision process a budget would have been considered. In that budget their would be a range of ideal price and what they are prepared to pay.
They call a meeting with Mark Bouris and the team and that is scheduled for 2 weeks from that date. They have the meeting and both parties cant agree on a figure and agree to come back for another meeting in 4 weeks time after both boards have convened as each their expectations were a little off what had been agreed.
They come back a month later and after much 'too-ing' and 'fro-ing' they agree.
In this sort of scenario which from my experience is relatively common it could take until May-June for an agreement to be signed which funnily enough may closely coincide with the US Patent.

Just my takings :)