SPOOZ Inc (SPZI)

[keegers]

Are you quoting Verapan or voicing your own concerns? Either way, this piece is just wrong. "f that exclusive license is also "perpetual" as was attributed to Paul in an e mail he sent to someone from this board, then 141 now has effective "ownership" of SWARM, not just a license. And if that is the case, I will find it EXTREMELY devious for Paul to be calling a transaction like this a "license". A license which is exclusive AND perpetual is no different than a "sale"."

A sale is much different than a perpetual license. SPOOZ owns the IP associated with SWARM. Period. 141 gets to use SWARM as long as they uphold the agreements in the licensing contract. If these terms are violated in some way, 141 gets to keep nothing from the deal, and SPOOZ will retain SWARM, the payments received from the 1.5 million, and the 120 million shares.