Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
There are more questions than answers with REVO.
THE SEC had questions. REVO had no answers.
The case wasn't dismissed by the court, Lantern
The case was dismissed by Eyetalk365.
This is the second case in which Eyetalk365 has filed for Voluntary Dismissal, before the defendant has entered an appearance.
Make of that what you will.
Eyetalk365 is an LLC holding only REVO patents,ceo.
Independent verification is required, goodboy.
'Forward looking statements' do not qualify as 'independent verification'.
The unreliability of the forward looking statement(s) on which you rely is illustrated by the fact that the directors have not provided shareholders with any details of their co-operation with the SEC, despite their promise to do so 'in the next few weeks'.
Agreed. REVO and Eyetalk365 probably are secretly linked.
The SEC suspension is a fact. Nothing twisted,goodboy.
It is also a fact that REVO issued an 8-k admitting it issued unreliable Press Releases to shareholders. Nothing twisted.
Until you provide independent verification of your statement:
The SEC suspended REVO for twisting the truth,goodboy.
So, I can totally agree that the truth does matter.
The REVO share scam was doomed when the SEC exposed that REVO directors made unreliable statements and misrepresentations to shareholders.
This forced the directors, formally, to confirm that their statements and filings had been, consistently, unreliable over many years.
The DD presented here doesn't amount to a hill of beans, in comparison.
Have you been talking to Eyetalk365, ceo?
Maybe Eyetalk365 wasn't a valuable, or valued, client.
Tell Johnny that the lawyers resigned, Lantern.
The reason the lawyers resigned may be unknown, but those with a grasp of the facts know that they did.
By the way, there may be some relevance to the fact that those 'top lawyers' resigned within one year of being appointed, and before any of the cases were settled. Don't you think?
Do you deny that Farney Daniels resigned,Johnny?
The facts are that Farney Daniels came on board in 2014 and jumped ship in 2015.
Simple.
The 'big' law firm resigned from representing Eyetalk365,Lantern.
In March 2014 REVO issued a PR to announce that the Law Offices of Farney Daniels was contracted to represent Eyetalk365 LLC.
No PR was issued when those attorneys resigned from representing Eyetalk365 in March 2015.
If it was relevant that the attorneys were appointed, how relevant is it that they decided to resign before the cases were settled?
What does it matter who retained the attorneys,Lantern?
If there's a separate assignment where is it,Lantern?
What royalties are coming from Eyetalk365?
There was a $900k 'lump sum' Lantern. Remember?
The license agreement is also an assignment, Lantern.
We're agreed, Notimpressed, Eyetalk365 owns the patents.
Your post confirms all that's been said before.
1. Eyetalk365 owns the patents.
2. They own the patents so long as they do not default on their agreement with REVO, And
3. REVO cannot terminate the agreement unless Eyetalk365 defaults.
The termination clause, as amended, is reproduced below
You're relying on an unreliable PR, riskreward.
The directors have admitted that their PRs and SEC filings are 'unreliable' The USPTO, on the other hand, have never had that problem.
So, if the USPTO says that patent ownership has been assigned I'd prefer to accept their word for it.
The patent were licensed to Eyetalk365 in a way which amounted to an assignment of ownership.
REVO directors told shareholders they gave Eyetalk365 a license. They told the USPTO, and the Court hearing the infringement claims, that there was an assignment of ownership rights to Eyetalk365.
Simple.
There's no need to stretch the truth, CEO
Eyetalk365 is contractually bound to pay continuing Royalties.
The ownership rights transferred to Eyetalk365 because the patents were leased for the remainder of their validity.
The contract provides that REVO can cancel the contract if Eyetalk365 doesn't pay whatever royalties may become due.
But, as you say, Eyetalk365 will continue to pay whatever is due to REVO, and REVO doesn't have to cancel the contract if they don't.
This 'mess' means shareholders will get nothing, Lantern
Let's keep things factually correct, Lantern.
The assignment (September 2014) was before the SEC suspension (June 2015).
The assignment/licensing agreement says that REVO can cancel the deal if Eyetalk365 doesn't pay royalties which (may) become due to REVO.
The point of the assignment is that it effectively transferred the REVO business to Eyetalk365. The bottom line is that REVO no longer has any say in any business matters affecting the patents.
The transfer of business to Eyetalk365 LLC means that the REVO business is controlled by a private company. Private companies have no reporting obligations to the SEC, or REVO shareholders.
As predicted, REVO shareholders have been left holding not very much of value.
The USPTO treats exclusive licenses and assignments differently.
Here's what USPTO says about exclusive licenses and assignments
REVO concluded an exclusive license AND patent assignment
The USPTO was told of the assignment, but REVO shareholders were told only of the exclusive license.
Eyetalk365 lawyers filed the assignment with USPTO and REVO filed details of the exclusive license with the SEC.
Details of the assignment can be found by following this link to the USPTO. http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/assignment?id=36386-715&q=7193644
I am assuming, of course, that the USPTO filing is not fraudulent.
Carter doesn't hold the patents,Lantern. There's no ace.
Another feeble excuse for the absentee directors
Here's the supposed reason why REVO directors wont tell shareholders what was received from settlements.
No NDA prevents REVO reporting receipts from Eyetalk365.
Not reporting income to shareholders is a matter of choice.
I can agree that
It's too late to save REVO shareholders, goodboy.
REVO directors hide behind NDA. You said it,Notimpressed
The directors reported an NDA in April 2015,dehart
REVO directors know more than they're telling shareholders,IPO$
The Agreement with Eyetalk365 is a sham.
Your defense of the REVO directors is that an agreement with a 'loophole' designed to breach it from day one is not a sham agreement. It's just deliberately misleading.
It takes some chutzpah to rely on that defense!
It takes dishonesty to tell REVO shareholders (and the SEC) that there is a valuable agreement with Eyetalk365, if Eyetalk365 was, automatically, in breach of the agreement, from day one.
That dishonesty goes deeper when the agreement is used to file deliberately misleading patent assignments with the USPTO, and deliberately to mislead a court of law.
REVO shareholders are in a very deep hole if the directors consider it 'good business practice' deliberately to mislead all and sundry.
Why would that good business practice not include continuing deliberately to mislead REVO shareholders?
Early investors, scammed by 'Honest' Ron, were African-American.
The fact is that most (if not all) early investors, scammed by REVO, were African-American friends and neighbors of 'Honest' Ron. Which makes the following statement it all the more hypocritical
That's all very clever. But why use Eyetalk365?
Bringing Eyetalk365 into the picture led, directly, to misleading shareholders, the court and the USPTO with a 'loophole' assignment of patent ownership.
The Eyetalk365 shenanigans attracted an SEC inquiry, and destroyed shareholder value.
Honest directors would simply have operated through REVO.
Did Eyetalk365 and REVO deliberately mislead the court?
Here's your theory, in your own words:
The court process required "ASSIGNMENT" to allow EYETALK to bring NON CONTESTABLE (right to bring claims) INFRINGEMENT claims to COURT. REVO always knew that the (PAY IN U.S. DOLLARS) was the ESCAPE CLAUSE if EYETALK tried to USE ASSIGNMENT as a RUSE to OWN REVO PATENTS.
The SEC looked, and suspended the stock.
Not surprising that REVO couldn't give straight answers to SEC questions, or that the SEC then suspended the stock to protect investors.
REVO can terminate only if Eyetalk365 defaults.
That's a standard contractual term. And that's what I've said, more than once.
REVO can TERMINATE the AGREEMENT (as you point out) at ANY TIME (with NO TIME RESTRICTIONS or LIMITATIONS) while EYETALK CONTINUES to PAY EXPENSES, INK DEALS and OWE 40% of GROSS REVENUES.
Ross Helfer is Agent for Eyetalk365. Not owner.
We know Ross Helfer is the agent for Eyetalk365. But nobody knows who he is acting as agent for.
Ross Helfer was initially appointed by REVO to license and/or sell the patents, before he formed Eyealk365, to 'acquire' the REVO patent license/assignment.
We know he is not the exclusive owner of Eyetalk365, because REVO is supposed to have a management interest in Eyetalk365. But we don't know who has the remaining interests.
It's all very incestuous, and deliberately secretive.
Eyetalk did not pay REVO $900k in cash.
We know, for a fact, that Eyetalk365 did not pay $900k in cash to REVO.
Here's a direct quote of your post.
Eyetalk VOIDS the entire agreement if they in FACT DID NOT PAY $900,000.00 in CASH, (for any and ALL Payments) as the AGREEMENT STATES (read it it's there for ALL too SEE) ... ALL PAYMENTS are to be made in U.S DOLLARS !!! "Or EQUIVALENT" as agreed upon is a MUTE POINT as there is NO EQUIVALENT (by law) that is considered to be U.S DOLLARS ~~ EXCEPT U.S DOLLARS (LEGAL TENDER). The IDEA that EYETALK could HOAX REVO with an EQUIVALENT that was "FAKE/WORTHLESS/DID NOT EXIST etc etc, is TERMINATION of AGREEMENT waiting to HAPPEN. That is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.