After a few questions of relevance, it's back to mindless...

After a few questions of relevance, it's back to mindless assertions.

"CB , $100m mkt caps are usually ascribed to Tech stocks WITH Patents (oh and more than vendors holding 5% of the stock) imo"

"Ive done business in the states and if you dont have a patent for proprietary tenchnology you get eaten for breakfast by the sharks.
Thats leaving oneself open im afraid."

So MHM need to rush out and get a patent, to satisfy Spiderman and Good Oil. Never mind the fact that everyone would know how to treat the salt slag and other waste. They'll have a patent. You've got to have a patent, even if it costs you all of your business.
If you two believe it will benefit the company and not bring about the destruction of their IP by making it public, make your case. At the moment no-one else knows how to replicate what MHM does, so the points for good strategy seem to be going to them.
Do you think they'd be the only ones doing this if they got a patent in 2006? That is a serious question. You should answer it.

The patent issue has been explained several times over and Good Oil has read and responded to the answers. I'll post the link if you like. Bringing it up again is deceptive.
Just claiming something is a negative doesn't make it so.

There's been way more evidence provided for the pro case than the negative on this thread.