Hi @Missypoo As I had indicated in my initial analysis, it is...

Hi @Missypoo

As I had indicated in my initial analysis, it is difficult to determine the significance of the term referring to right of first negotiation, and what it might mean to RAP in a monetary sense. Referring only to ‘certain commercial transactions with third parties’, it is intentionally unclear.

Although shareholders might feel they have a right to know, the Company is unlikely to clarify the term’s meaning because it would disadvantage any negotiations that it may undertake for other potential partnerships. If its details were common knowledge then RAP unlikely would be able to negotiate a more beneficial arrangement in any similar negotiations.

Pfizer should have no claim on the Covid technology that RAP already has developed. The issuing of the licence to Pfizer is based on RAP’s holding ownership of it.

This short-term Agreement with Pfizer is quite abnormal. Usually a licence is granted for the term of validity of the intellectual property (usually patents) on which the licence is based. This one is only a six-month licence, so as the licensee Pfizer should have no claim to benefits beyond October unless extension is agreed.

After that time Pfizer would need to negotiate another agreement if it wished to retain a licence, or perhaps otherwise offer to purchase the Covid scanner device for a very large sum. That is assuming that it by then hasn’t been allowed to own the Company.

There is of course the very distinct possibility that Pfizer will not achieve ownership of RAP, and also that a far more attractive suitor may emerge. In such case the ring could be worn on a different finger.

I believe the best outcome though would be that Australian shareholders retain their current ownership and in doing so be able to share in the CEO’s oft expressed excitement about the Company's future.