Negative assurance is always difficult to present ...
but, since you insist, I'll take a shot.
Fact: Torvec has articulated a number of times exactly what it would take to allow a commercialization event.
There was the infamous "Anatomy of a Deal" discussion, there was the school bus quantification of a deal, there was the private shareholder's meeting discussion, there was the discussion and voting at the shareholder's meeting of the anticipated stock price produced by planned events, and of course there were other discussions with less details such as the coming of a watershed event. Need I go on? (There are other examples, of course)
Well, one could notice a pattern here if you were to think about it. The pattern is (IMO) one of a "big splash" "one shot" kind of a mentality. That is one of the consistent things in the whole plan right from the beginning.
The actual opportunities that Torvec has had for a commercialization event have never been worthy of a decision to commercialize an invention up to this point.
So, (IMO) this is why there has been a decision "not to commercialize". (IMO) once they have a worthy deal to consider and until and unless the "splash" can be of a substantial enough size they will continue to decide to wait.
Of course, there is one other thing; you seem to be confused about the concept of "desire to commercialize being absent when there is a decision not to commercialize". The desire can always be (and in this case always is) present even when there is a decision not to.
Does that help?
AI
