Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I agree that to do it justice, without wholly usurping the entire function here, that it might best be discussed in bite sized pieces. I do think there are a couple of ways that much of it can be addressed that would be both solidly on topic and suitably entertaining, but don't know, yet, if I could make what I'm thinking about work well within the TOU. I'll check on that. Nothing abusive of other posters... but perhaps challenging of some subject matter tolerance in the examples.
Otherwise, I can respond to a couple of more general points off the top of my head... before beginning to hack on it point by point and in detail.
First, as a necessity of logic, we need to address key elements related to repeated statements citing a lack of proof. Begin with "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack"... parse it through a filter that separates two piles out of the mass, one the SEC's legalistic "forward looking statements" approach, the other a pile of "doesn't exist because it hasn't been created yet, although it might be"... and what are you left with ??? The day before the linked article was published, you could do a search for key words targeting its key findings, and claim "no reverse engineering of copyright enforcement blah blah... has found... X ... indicating Y."
Skipping past any analysis of that, what that brings you to eventually are questions about the nature of innovation... and how various aspects of the way it applies generally to progress in intellectual endeavors... applies here. I find a few errors there.
On the same theme, I note your objections based on opinions expressed as a techie, are similar in structure to the same sorts of objections you should get from investors, so find that is a relevant area to explore... not just dismissing it.
I think we do not actually agree on the probabilities re the potential that new ideas may exist which are not similar to or minor extensions of prior art. If NXCO in fact doesn't have such a bag of tricks, in whatever state of development into IP or functional products, they can contact me and I will provide them with the concepts I came up with while considering this response. Otherwise, I'm inclined to demur... to the degree that we may lapse into operating a swap meet for trading unpublished IP.
As far as a technical ability to achieve perfection, I disagree, but perhaps more in definition than else. The letters we use to construct words are not perfect. A magnifying glass will show flaws in the print in a news article, as well as flaws in the paper, but they are still good enough to be considered perfect for the purpose. Even when we make a singular mistaku or typographicl error, the resolution of the script or utility of the font aren't in question, and the meaning isn't mistaken, so, how perfect does it need to be to be perfect ? The example is useful in context, too...
Again, briefly, I object to most of your "BUT"s... not as topics worthy of discussion, but for lack of specific logical relevance. Each is a problem that exists, but it doesn't exist as anything that applies uniquely to NXCO... and each has its own sets of dynamics as a problem which contains the seeds of the solutions... none having unique relevance to NXCO.
The rest seems to boil down to an argument that "resistance is futile"... we should all just surrender to the corporate controllers in our chosen field of competition and surrender our foolish pretense to having an ability to compete. (Queue maniacal laughter...)
I will agree generally that the structure of the contest we see now between pirates and privateers could easily encounter revolutionary changes, changing everything... without it ever changing the fact that there will always be a some sort of a competition. Doesn't mean you won't predictably tip the scales of a balance by moving even a minor bit more to one side from the other, when you can see what is there, and control the additions... or that, having only seen the scales tip one way... enables you to make predictions of what comes next... when you don't know or control what additions or subtractions will come next.
Market Data 
Markets 
