InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 450
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/08/2013

Re: RPH9878 post# 65034

Saturday, 12/07/2013 10:16:51 AM

Saturday, December 07, 2013 10:16:51 AM

Post# of 92246
RPH......do not lump the licensing and the marketing together. They are separate and distinct deals.

The licensing deal is purported to not be finalized, though the marketing deal has.

The licensing deal is not related to the fact that Fuse Science is compensating Macular for a marketing deal with the tag "containing Fuse Science Technology" already formally being touted in their press/web releases and other forms of advertisement.

Fuse Science realizes any future Macular product sales are likely to be insignificant and the only benefit to the relationship is Fuse's ability to meet the minimum legal standard to now claim that Fuse Technology has been licensed.

Fuse is in the business to sell stock, not product. The product is secondary.

It is just another form of misleading public relations much like Fuse Science "patent pending" claims. The patent applications referred to were filed 10+ years ago and have no chance of utility or being issued. It is simply a marketing technique to meet the minimum legal requirement for advertising. It is a fact Fuse Science hasn't filed any patent applications. CURE Pharma has and licenses the patent applications to Fuse Science on a 1 year renewable lease.

If you disagree, I challenge you to cite a single patent that EITHER Cure Pharma OR Fuse Science holds that has been issued or offers a legally protected utility. You can't because it doesn't exist. The challenge is not unreasonable or even the least bit difficult to understand.

I reiterate, Fuse Science is in the business to sell stock, not product. The product is secondary.