Hi Mach,
Based on your reply, I honestly know that you are missing my point. The company should not have exclusive rights to the multiple patents. The fact is the company should own them. This means that the company makes the decisions about whom may receive exclusive rights, and, more importantly, the company is the primary receiver of all financial income. The CEO should have structured all patents in a fashion where the company has secured all decisions in this area. The CEO owes this to the shareholders. Fiduciary trust and common sense all play a role in in this action.
In the past, we have had many expectations set by the CEO. The Navy, important government agencies, revenues based on standing orders, overseas business, agreements with overseas partners, clinical trials holding off government approval that all of a sudden don’t need to happen, and many others that don’t need to be spelled out here because they have been well communicated. The novice investor would look at this, tie in the patent decisions, and wonder why anyone would invest in this stock/company. This “is” the point. Historic performance does not help the company’s case and now we have a value question based on patents..
I would be more than willing to meet/communicate with you about the direction of the company. In fact, a meeting with Bret could be critical success factor at this point. I have many friends and acquaintances that see these events as clearly as I do. It would be a good thing to clear this up, set the proper course, and possibly plant a seed for success. Regarding shares, I have a ton of skin in the game. Success is the only option for me. These are the facts.
Interesting that you bring up a Larry name. Why do you feel a need to throw that in? Open question.
Based on your reply, I honestly know that you are missing my point. The company should not have exclusive rights to the multiple patents. The fact is the company should own them. This means that the company makes the decisions about whom may receive exclusive rights, and, more importantly, the company is the primary receiver of all financial income. The CEO should have structured all patents in a fashion where the company has secured all decisions in this area. The CEO owes this to the shareholders. Fiduciary trust and common sense all play a role in in this action.
In the past, we have had many expectations set by the CEO. The Navy, important government agencies, revenues based on standing orders, overseas business, agreements with overseas partners, clinical trials holding off government approval that all of a sudden don’t need to happen, and many others that don’t need to be spelled out here because they have been well communicated. The novice investor would look at this, tie in the patent decisions, and wonder why anyone would invest in this stock/company. This “is” the point. Historic performance does not help the company’s case and now we have a value question based on patents..
I would be more than willing to meet/communicate with you about the direction of the company. In fact, a meeting with Bret could be critical success factor at this point. I have many friends and acquaintances that see these events as clearly as I do. It would be a good thing to clear this up, set the proper course, and possibly plant a seed for success. Regarding shares, I have a ton of skin in the game. Success is the only option for me. These are the facts.
Interesting that you bring up a Larry name. Why do you feel a need to throw that in? Open question.
