Hi Vintage, I don't often disagree with your uncompromisingly...

Hi Vintage, I don't often disagree with your uncompromisingly realistic perspectives, but I'd like to give an alternative view in this case.

Over the years I've been involved in the development and marketing of several patented technologies. In my view, the problem that Xped and ADRC have faced is pretty common in the world of licensing IP: It's that the new technology in question - in this case the 'one tap' aspect of ADRC, while very useful, is not groundbreaking enough to set potential licensees on fire. To the extent, that is, that they are prepared to commit to a royalty on every device they ever sell. The companies would rather mosey on with whatever they've already got. Generally speaking, for a new and patented technology to make it out there - it needs to be the whole technology, not just an improving aspect of a technology that is already on the market. Dolby was one of those. A recent Aussie honey harvesting innovation was one of those.

However, what often happens with technologies like ADRC, is that they succeed bigtime in the end, but the pathway to success is just much more convoluted than the inventors and investors would have preferred. What often happens for example, is that some manufacturer eventually comes out with the improvement as an 'in house' development - transgresses the patent claims - and the whole bundle lands up in court. (To the considerable delight of attorneys on both sides.) Eventually there is a ruling in favour of the inventors, and only after that, does income begin to flow. The CSIRO's wireless technology was one of those.

In the case of Xped, disregarding crushing CN arrangements, ridiculous consolidations, high salaries and other shenanigans, Xped have done a good job of broadening the outlook for the company.

I am hopeful that the company will survive, thrive, and that ADRC 'one tap' will eventually be financially recognised for the genuine innovation that it is.