LOL ok so perhaps we were misinterpreting each other then - one of the hazards of written communication.
Just to reiterate, I agree that given the huge potential, no judge/jury/panel *should* consider ACTC IP rights as compensation, but that opinion is based on your and my personal knowledge/due diligence of the science at play here. Juries in particular would very likely be completely ignorant of the potential here, and I know from experience that sometimes a jury/panel decision can go inexplicably opposite to what any logic would expect. All you need is one obstinate juror and the rest of the jury wanting nothing more to get on with their lives, and boom, logic goes out the door and they go the way of least resistance, justice be damned.
Add into that mix a skilled lawyer who can convince the judge/panel/jury that the science has a definable current value based on the current market cap (and that is a perfectly reasonable measure), and that could easily be enough to make a successful claim, even to an actively involved jury.
Our opinion of whether it is fair is immaterial, unless we are on that panel... and we would never be picked by plaintiff for that very reason.. we're too informed.
