Unlike Paradigm, I would be pleased to promptly answer questions. I said recently that Paradigm is NOT the manufacturer of the newscan products because that is what was in the PR. As distributor, Paradigm would be in a different profit and control position of the products. It has been said that Global Detector (YOU) are the master distributor for all Paradigm Products. As such YOU are high in the profit chain.
Paradigm WAS the manufacturer of Frisker. Triple Tech provided a suggested manufacturer (turn key) to establish costs, availability, and manufacturability of Frisker. But, it was Paradigm that manufactured and should have carried any liability insurance. Paradigm paid a royalty in exchange for the right to manufacture a quantity of Friskers.
This is NOT the relationship with whoever manufactures the newscan. That's why I asked. With Frisker, Paradigm was the manufacturer, distributor, and often the retailer. Quite a different profit structure as may interest purchasers of Paradigm stock.
I AM saying that Paradigm manufactured FriskerPro and that royalties is NOT the major difference between the contracts.
Your message:
"You burnt your bridge. By the way, You keep mentioning that Paradigm is just reselling the products, not manufacturing them. Are you suggesting that Paradigm manufactured the FriskerPro? The major difference in this new agreement is that they do not have a monthly royalty fee to pay a patent holder and they have 5 products now instead of one. The Master Distributor position is a much better arrangement than the company had with your company, Triple Tech."
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
