Not this "we" thing again. 1. No, not quite. Th
Post# of 40991
(Total Views: 484)
Posted On: 11/14/2019 4:59:31 PM
Not this "we" thing again.
1. No, not quite. There is a non-binding LOI to acquire Cogosense, and not even that has been fully paid.
2. "We" common shareholders own nothing. We hold common shares. A shell. Steve Berman holds preferred shares. Steve Berman holds everything of value. He can literally just walk away from the shell and leave all shareholders in the dust.
3. If an insurer or auto company came in and was so smitten with the patents that they wanted to purchase them, AND Steve Berman actually owned 100% of Cogosense, they would not have to buy out common shareholders of ONCI. They'd have to buy out Steve Berman.
4. None of this negates the original point that these patents have existed for a long time before Steve Berman ever made one dollar of payment to acquire them, and have existed for years since. Never in all that time has anyone, other than Steve Berman, attempted to acquire them.
In all the supposed meetings Berman has had with auto makers and the like, not one of them looked at the patents and said, "We like these. Let's pay Cogosense 5 million for them and this Berman guy can go fly a kite."
So like I said, the road to distracted driving prosperity is paved through Steve Berman and his ill-funded pink sheet ticker as though if a major auto maker or insurer wanted the product, he's the gatekeeper? They wouldn't just go directly to Cogosense with their massive resources and cut out the irrelevant middle man and his non-binding LOI?
1. No, not quite. There is a non-binding LOI to acquire Cogosense, and not even that has been fully paid.
2. "We" common shareholders own nothing. We hold common shares. A shell. Steve Berman holds preferred shares. Steve Berman holds everything of value. He can literally just walk away from the shell and leave all shareholders in the dust.
3. If an insurer or auto company came in and was so smitten with the patents that they wanted to purchase them, AND Steve Berman actually owned 100% of Cogosense, they would not have to buy out common shareholders of ONCI. They'd have to buy out Steve Berman.
4. None of this negates the original point that these patents have existed for a long time before Steve Berman ever made one dollar of payment to acquire them, and have existed for years since. Never in all that time has anyone, other than Steve Berman, attempted to acquire them.
In all the supposed meetings Berman has had with auto makers and the like, not one of them looked at the patents and said, "We like these. Let's pay Cogosense 5 million for them and this Berman guy can go fly a kite."
So like I said, the road to distracted driving prosperity is paved through Steve Berman and his ill-funded pink sheet ticker as though if a major auto maker or insurer wanted the product, he's the gatekeeper? They wouldn't just go directly to Cogosense with their massive resources and cut out the irrelevant middle man and his non-binding LOI?
(2)
(0)