I apologize, I made the mistake of taking your statements literally.
When you asked "then why did the plaintifs fight so hard to retain control of its usage?" you meant something else, apparently.
And when you queried "How can the plaintifs sue for CDN$20 million for a test that is supposedly worthless?", you meant, well, I still don't know, because AccuVector was suing for DAMAGES, and they can sue for damages whether Radient ever develops CIT or throws it in the dumpster.
CIT was not deemed worthless when AccuVector and the Univ of Alberta instigated the lawsuits -- does that clear it up for you?
CIT is worthless now, no matter what happened in 2002. Do you get that? Or do you think Radient is falsely claiming a zero value for CIT to hide assets from Rosen, as vester_guy appears to believe?
