A bit scary indeed, allnumbers.
Although it is not a total gloom and doom scenario, I wonder if time is not on our side when thinking about holding out for the sale of the technology. Perhaps a lower share price would be acceptable to us as shareholders. I know we are certainly hoping for the Eaton type buyout, but perhaps we should lower our expectations a bit and take a lower price while minimizing the risk of losing everything to someone less ethical. (OK, it hurts to type the words "lower our expectations" - I am still standing strong, but this is something worth discussing...)
I know nothing about what the Gleasmans are doing behind the scenes, and I do continue to trust in their action, but are they thinking about this type of thing? Again, they are much smarter in business than I...
If something horrible came to pass where a crook in another country, let alone our own country, were to pirate the patent and develop their own version there would be so much litigation that just the time it would take to get through it would ruin any chance of recovery. Law suits are one thing, but holding the technology is another. A bird in the hand, if you will...
As it is quiet and no one really knows what is transpiring, I still find it difficult to make an assessment. I think this article describing this insane legislation brings to light something that ALL inventors and inventors should be aware of. It may very well change the road that inventors take. Much development in the world is based on collaboration and discovery, but now ideas will be kept so close to the chests that they may no longer want to take advantage of that concept. And they may not be able to develop any kind of public company value, which many startups use to get their ideas out there to begin with, as they can not talk about the technology and therefore not get investors. Saying "We have multiple patents" will not be a statement heard very often anymore, as they ideas will be public in a year and a half, which is not long enough to fully develop, test, and market anything of significance.
It is a catch 22, in my opinion, and it demonstrates once again how out of touch our legislators can be sometimes.
$50 per share is nice, and $75 is better, but $20 is good and $0 is just plain no fun. I am not a pusher of those who run this great company, and I would never say "hurry up", as I believe in most any environment slow and steady wins the race (never heard me say THAT before) but sometimes I also see the dark side of business and how ruthless it can be (where's Ruth?). And with all the developments in China and the questionable business practices that exist in what is STILL A COMMUNIST COUNTRY with all it's human rights abuses and thievery, this does not bode well with me. We let a Chinese company in to see the goods. Was this a good move or did we let the fox into the hen house?
You all know I am very supportive of the Gleasmans and my own small investment, and I have as much faith as ever in Torvec, but this legislation could easily have impact on us in the future.
The world is changing faster than ever, my friends. It's tough to keep up!!
-Neb
AI
