Jonty, thanks for the info, ref: life span of wand, was it...

Jonty, thanks for the info, ref: life span of wand, was it factual?

To perhaps judge the potential revenue /royalties figures for Obj (and this perhaps already considered/done by sophisticated investors) it could be done by looking at previous sale figures (is this available?) or base figures for product sales ‘times’ a conservative royalty figure, naive thought or not! but SI may have a good idea already and judge accordingly.

I believe a shorter Life Span (assuming life span of one year) of the wand would, if tech widely accepted by consumers, be naturally be more advantageous towards Royalty figures.
With this in mind did mangerment at the time ‘push’ for and receive a higher royalty rate to partly make up for this.
If P&G sales significantly up due to OBJ tech then sales of creams etc a boom to P&G with only needing to pay royalty once per year per wand but selling the extra products because of it: consumers perhaps replenishing creams 4 times up per year.

If SH and or BG to hit the shelves I believe, imo, you would hope that the IP needs ‘replacing’ more often than the wand.
If well received by consumers I would think the shorter life span would be forgiven if results of the products is very good to excellent.

Back to figuring out base sales: despite confidentiality of specfic sales figures by P&G, industry sources would have a rough estimate(?)