The 8-K for the GCDx agreement specifically mentioned royalty payments for sales:
"GCDx shall pay us royalties, which shall be earned only upon actual receipt of payment of revenue or sublicense license fees and sublicense royalty fees by GCDx, as set forth in the Agreement."
MacLellan would not "forget" to mention royalty payments in the UNI 8-K and 8-K/A because that would be passing up an opportunity to promote his stock by forecasting future revenues.
GCDx Deal: $200,000 upfront and sales royalties afterwards.
UNI Deal: $100,000 upfront and $100,000 per year for five years.
The GCDx deal was interpreted as proof that GCDx/Provista was taking over Radient. Why is the UNI deal not interpreted the same way? All the Creeping Takeover theorists have to do is switch buyers. Why is that difficult? UNI seems much more likely to be a Takeover candidate than GCDx/Provista.
Of course, I think the Creeping Takeover theory is ludicrous, but UNI is less ludicrous than GCDx/Provista.
