If by agreement you mean that you concede that the PCT letter provides a "strong basis on which to evaluate the chances of obtaining patents" and that it "carries considerable weight" in the granting of a patent and that the unfavorable PCT report received pretty much nixes any attempt to patent WSGI's existing claims. . .then I guess we can agree.
Further telling, is the fact that the ARGUS was shipped off and the old Chairman departed within days of the PCT report being published. Not to mention how a company that specialized in patents decided to acquire the BIB and not the "novel" patent pending ARGUS airship.
Ever wonder why WSGI retained the old STS envelope in the settlement agreement? What would they want with that POS as you refer to it? Ironic that they announced a visually identical airship to the STS as the "new" ARGUS and it was "ready to fly" on the same day they announced their separation agreement with TAO. I would argue that the only difference between the STS and ARGUS is a little lipstick on the pig.
And, how about those statements from the WSGI officers at the 2012 shareholders meeting that the Argus performance reports were being kept confidential at the request of a customer. Its been years now and I see no sign of any revenues or support provided by said customer that is still yet to be identified. After a couple of years of nonsupport from this purported customer, what obligation does WSGI owe them? If the performance reports were in anyway positive, WSGI would be screaming them from the rooftops in an effort to sell "their" product. (or sell more shares as the case may be.)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
