"I wouldn't get all excited about this yet."
Why not? Basically, judge upheld that we have a valid contract, that Zipmark now has to stand trial and basically they now need to disprove the allegation that they violated it by their actions. (BTW, this seems to put to bed the argument you were advancing a while back that MYEC didn't have legal standing in Cali). Judge also ruled that Zipmark's attempt to deny the validity of our patent was a canard (i.e., our IP rights held up).
What's left, except for a finding of just how vast the claim for damages is.
"Just means that all MYEC statements must be held as true."
Not a small or trivial thing, opposite of what you are trying to imply.
This was a big win, a major battle victory in the course of the war. The only annoyance is that we are probably still a couple years out from having a judgment and getting money from an outfit that blatantly violated their contractual obligations because they felt they could get away with it. What would be ideal would be an injunction that they stop using our patented technology because they violated the contract. That would serve to accelerate the settlement process.
It bothers me that the party doing bad (Zipmark) is allowed to continue to operate and make money using a tool that we own and allowed them to use via the contract. The basic principal of these scumbags is to continue to make as much cash flow as they can for as long as they can, until they are forced to stop - even when they know they are wrong and it has been clearly established from legal/administrative actions that they are wrong. But this clearly puts us on the right track. Your attempt to trivialize this victory is off target (to put it mildly).
Now, next up - Africa bank PR. Onward and upward, eh ??
M78
