Lets think about the downside that they are vulnearable to:
Lets get in our way-back machine and go back to the time when Paul Strickland was hinting there were major brokerage deals that were going to be happening. For the sake of argument, lets call one of the major brokerages "TD Amerischwab"
Now, lets say that the software really is ready to be announced. Lets say that our way-back machine has taken us back to the days before dilution and that TD Amerischwab is about to pull the trigger and do the deal. Then the thieves get caught & a lawsuit gets filed where a key issue is whether the software about to be licensed is actually owned by Spoooz. Why is it hard to comprehend what lawyers at TD Amerischwab are going to say?
TD Amerischwab's legal beagles are going to say this.... I guarantee it: "Whoa folks.... If, perchance, the courts rule that Spooz is the thief and He/Groves is the actual owner.... what kind of limboland does that leave us in as regards liability for our users who have signed up and are using the software? If the actual ownership is not firm, then how can we proceed with a deal? We can't!!" Lawyers may be the lowest form of life this side of cockroaches, but thats what lawyers are supposed to do. So, I'd expect my lawyer to raise a red flag on a product that the company I'm licensing it from might not actually own.
The worst case scenario is the court deciding that He/Groves are the actual owners. So, there is a very obvious liability side and that can not generate any other outcome than to make completion of any pending deals impossible. The uncertain ownership state makes it impossible to take a liability laden licensing deal to completion. Its as simple as that.
And further, from a Spooz shareholder's point of view, its not in my interest for there to be a bottomless pit of court mandated royalties or penalties resulting from the lawsuit. Now, if I'm just in it to flip the stock, explanations that a lawsuit put the software off-limits just piss me off. A flipper could care less if there is a reason because they have lost money. Even so, the fact remains that in any lawsuit where basic ownership is a key issue to be decided by the court, it is a fact of life that neither party can profit from use of the product in question. As such, like it or not, if Spooz were to have proceeded as though it were a fact that they owned the software, and if the court were then to decide that He/Groves actually own the software, then He/Groves would own the company.
So, as a pragmatic matter, the software had to be set aside and not used by either party. Once the court entered the picture and became the forum where the ownership question was to be answered, it was a given that NEITHER party owned the software and that NEITHER party had the right to profit from licensing of it. From the court's perspective, all parties had to be treated as though they did not own the software. Spooz could not have used the software before they were proven by the courts to be the actual owners.
So, the net-net of it from Spooz's point of view was that they had to decide to NEVER use it during the time the courts are deciding things. I suppose that will change if and when the lawsuit gets resolved, but till then its irrelevent that Spooz asserts ownership. Ownership will be established by the court case. Then the software might still be usable. We'll just have to wait & see.
Imperial Whazoo
"Just my opinions, folks. Do your own due diligence & make your own decisions. DO NOT... I repeat... DO NOT make any investment decisions on my comments. They are my opinions. That's all they are... OPINIONS."
"Just my opinions, folks. Do your own due diligence & make your own decisions. DO NOT... I repeat... DO NOT make any investment decisions on my comments. They are my opinions. That's all they are... OPINIONS."
