Obviously you are not a grifter. However, grifters are vague and don't provide details to keep their marks interested. You/WDDD could have provided a little bit more in terms of PR or about the plans moving forward. Thats all. A simple observation and yes my opinion.
I am hardly a Monday morning quarterback. I made quite a few predictions here and most them were accurate.
You say it's $1 million to defend an IPR. I did state you should know. However, my estimate came up as less, to do defend it.
I realize S&G is a patent firm on contingency. IPRs are a part of patent law. It was a question. If they have been here for 12 years and invested time and $$ pursuing patent enforcement here, why not go the extra step in TX? It is a legitimate question. It shows they don't have faith or confidence in the patents or the process, in the current landscape. In other words why let the case fold for an IPR? You may have had a different result in TX. Just my opinion.
I said nothing about threats of lawsuits against law firms for frivolous lawsuits, so I have no idea what you are referring to here.
You are correct that as a lay person and not an insider there is a lot that I am not privy to. I am not so self assured as you say. They are opinions, and in most cases I clearly state that I may not have all of the facts that you do, and have generally deferred to your decisions. As a shareholder, I do have a right to question what is going on and voice my opinions.
I also complimented your leadership on a number of occasions as navigating difficult financing and avoiding further dilution.
However, when things go wrong, we have a right to question where the break down was. I did not blame you for what happened here. A lot of moving parts, in the Courts, beyond your control. Your role was to guide the company toward a victory and give them the best chance at success. I think you did that, but do truly wonder if we may have had a different outcome if we went through TX.
