InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
5,728.80
(
0.41%
)
US TECH 100
19,528.00
(
0.90%
)
Dow Jones
42,052.19
(
0.69%
)
Brent Oil
72.91
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
69,613.69
(
0.19%
)
Post# of 130746
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

mfefree

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 11
Posts 1089
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/11/2010

mfefree

Re: Stock_Barber post# 89043

Tuesday, 10/13/2015 1:03:51 PM

Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:03:51 PM

Post# of 130746
I think the 1.1 B was a figure meant to force coo to allow epgl to finish the time agreed upon by the development agreement. COO wanted an immediate license instead of licensing at the end of the year when potentially more patents could be involved. In other words, maybe coo got the technology they wanted up front and were hoping to get off cheap. So, epgl answered with, "if you want out of the development agreement now, it's still going to cost you." Just my opinion.
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

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.

Sign Up