This is a typical basher mo. Forget about the dire

This is a typical basher mo. Forget about the direction of the company -the huge steps the co has made re patents and grant applications and the game changer to license or sell in europe etc , and focus on the minor.

You forget about the expensive cost of the patent work,especially if an in-house patent attorney is no longer doing the work for free and thus the tremendous value of the patents. Patent amortization last I knew was 479 k and ca 519k/year back in 2013-2014-and this was before the steps of the last years necessary to be able to license or sell such patents in Europe- a market population greater than the usa,but with smaller GDP,to balance out the greater population.

NNLX has estimated the patent sale value in Europe at 15M-see prior updates. Amortization should decline as a patent ages but those huge patent amortization values indicate a huge underlying patent value. Patents are usually renewable once,just like mining claims are usually renewable once,so that would project a 40-56 year time frame.

Maybe mits knows how long these patents are good for- patent life depends on various things-but usually 20-28 years.

The measure of the value of a startup is primarily determined by the direction it's taking.That's more important than just the books alone,especially if current assets exceed current debt -as they did last we knew.

Given all the patent costs I'm not surprised they didnt have enough net income to pay the extra 30k for patent maintenance fees. Are you admitting they are now a huge net income company!! Many penny companies at this pps dont have any gross revenue,let alone net income. Many dont even have an actual proven saleable product. Thats what is important at this stage -that the product is advancing,as updates show. Net revenue when achieved is a banner day, but not as important as company direction/product advancement,for the latter makes the former possible,and makes even bigger paydays possible.

Also,always about personal attacks on company management as is typical of a vendetta.
The company may have cut costs in half and doubled revenue but product advancement/proven viability and the game changer to take the necessary steps to license or sell or partner to sell is more important.

What would you have the company do-destroy this forward process by having the company directors etc
sell their restricted stock
engage in toxic financing
a bad jr partner arrangement whereby the money men always end up destroying the company
selling treasury stock into the market to depress stock prices,as many companies do