"However, mike41 seems like he has an excellent understanding of trade secrets in manufacturing, and it seems like he understands that NNVC owns that valuable asset.
I'm still not sure either way, but I tend to believe mike41, with his apparent industry experience."
Obviously you're free to feel that way. I was not commenting on his experience but rather his willingness to reach certain conclusions based on facts that he does not have.
"If NNVC sublicenses on very generous terms"
"This would be important if NNVC sublicenses out to big pharma"
From the License: "Nano may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the written consent of the other parties hereto."
A sublicense would be an assignment of Nano's rights and obligations. TheraCour might be expected to be amenable to that and sign off on it, but not necessarily under the same terms originally extended to Nano.
"I'm still not sure if it's 15% of NNVCs take (CEO indication) or 15% of total sales (seems to be the language in the license). This would be important if NNVC sublicenses out to big pharma and keeps only a cut of sales, say 20-50%."
I'm not sure where the "CEO indication" comes from or what it means and frankly don't care much...the license is the license and it says "15% on its (Nano's) net sales". Any postulated sublicensing could be expected to lead to a new agreement and new terms.
"So if NNVC developed some manufacturing know-how, they would apparently own it and Theracour could use it." That's what it says.
"If Theracour develops it for NNVC's behalf and NNVC pays for it, does Theracour still own it?"
That's what I've been saying. The difference, which I thought was covered under "I understand your point now" but now seems not to be, is that NNVC is paying TheraCour and TheraCour personnel are developing products and processes for NNVC...that DOES NOT make it NNVC's IP.
We shouldn't be continuing to ignore the very important distinction between IP owner and licensee, but if we do then this confusion will persist. This isn't about how well the math may or may not work out. It's about what the NNVC shareholders can lay claim to as assets and what they can't.
"Successful commercialization is succeeding in the process of
commercializing. It is not successfully having commercialized."
Say what?
