Replies to post #56985 on Tautachrome Inc (TTCM)

[Huggy Bear]

I don't think any Fortune 50 company is interested in this crap.

Due diligence shows a fraudulent shell that assumed a new name and story.

Real companies don't just take over a scam and expect it to be legitimate.

Not impressed, not fooled.

[Beandog]

Does not seem illogical to me at all. How do you know there haven't been any alpha and beta tests?

Point 1
Nowhere in the press release does it say "application". Remember, TTCM expects licensing revenue this year from licensing out the patented (and patent pending) KlickZie technology.

“Early this year the Company announced that it had been working to develop a KlickZie technology relationship with a Fortune 50 company (code name F50-1). In response to requests from F50-1, we have progressed in this work and have developed a cohesive and dynamic business model for F50-1 that exploits KlickZie technology in ways that impact the bottom line of the Fortune 50 company and their public image in powerful ways," said Dr. Jon Leonard, CEO. "We will present the KlickZie business model to key decision makers in upcoming meetings."

"It is clear to us that the economic payoff of KlickZie is very high for companies with a global reach and with a large numbers of consumer customers, and is particularly so when the product interactions with their customers is intense. We have also learned that the business model we have developed for F50-1 works well for other major firms. We intend to move our business model to these other companies as soon as possible," Dr. Leonard said.

Point 2
I don't know what the F50 Company thinks about being referred to as F50-1 but if they love this technology and want exclusive access to it, throwing out the F50-1 code name might just be a brilliant negotiating tactic. Ya never know...

[Grand]

I know what you are feeling, in OTC its not that common to hide Names, but mostly, News with Brands, getting used with P/D and that is not happening with TTCM, when they are saying we are in talk with fort 50, than its sure true..

But the point with saying Fort 50-1, signalize to the Fort 50 CO, look Google (or who ever it is) we are not limited to your Company, we are also in talk with several other Fort cos..

this can get seen as, be hurry Fort 50, if u want to get a deal with us, be fast and or to make the hands from TTCM stronger during negotiations.

[GreenMan]

Your kidding right? If you were pitched a patent that had the possibility to improve your global presence and bottom line, you wouldn't be interested until you had only the post beta-version in hand? Don't you know that the later you partner in something like this, the more expensive it's going to be for your company? The issue is this: will the patent's technology and the business case relevant to your specific company or sector make this a good business venture?

The course that TTCM is taking is how things get done and is not unusual in the least:

Idea --> patent --> relevant capital/partnership hunt --> presentations and discussions --> assessment of the business case --> partnership --> development and testing --> release version --> production to scale --> marketing and sales --> market reception and profitability --> household name notoriety --> share price appreciation --> shareholder wealth.

Can we at least agree that TTCM is still in the early stages of this course and not judge them for not completing what cannot be completed until something else happens first? Put yourself in Dr. Leonard's place. How would you like a bunch of living room quarterbacks telling you how to play in the NFL? The guy's an innovator, he's enthusiastic, he believes Kickzie will not only be profitable but has components that can enhance our lives, and he is experienced in the patent process.

Also, there is no company name mentioned and it's perfectly legal and proper to inform your investors on latest developments, including if discussions are occurring with a F50 company. It would be dumb if shareholders had no clue whatsoever what venture/partnership efforts were being made to go from patent to market. And if it is proper for shareholders to know, then it must also be made available to the public or you violate the law. Nothing improper or poorly done here at all.

There's nothing wrong with contrarian views. I welcome them because I want to know everything I can about a company a may invest in. But I wish contrarian views would be a little more well considered. Some of the contrarian stuff on this board doesn't even allow for simple things like patience.

[returns]

It is logical for a Fortune 50 Company to enter
into a contract with TTCM if it's they see a
Patented concept they can be part of. The
Fortune 50 stated that they REQUESTED this
new technology to be implemented into their
business platform company wide.

In keeping transparent with the shareholders,
and waiting until everything has been negotiated
with all parties, the Fortune 50 company would
prefer to be anonymous and be referred to as
F50-1.

Code names should be kept as internal references
unless you want to keep your shareholders informed
and are using an alias to protect all parties involved.

[GreenMan]

If you were pitched a patent that had the possibility to improve your global presence and bottom line, you wouldn't be interested until you had only the post beta-version in hand? Don't you know that the later you partner in something like this, the more expensive it's going to be for your company? The issue is this: will the patent's technology and the business case relevant to your specific company or sector make this a good business venture?

The course that TTCM is taking is how things get done and is not unusual in the least:

Idea --> patent --> relevant capital/partnership hunt --> presentations and discussions --> assessment of the business case --> partnership --> development and testing --> release version --> production to scale --> marketing and sales --> market reception and profitability --> household name notoriety --> share price appreciation --> shareholder wealth.

Can we at least agree that TTCM is still in the early stages of this course and not judge them for not completing what cannot be completed until something else happens first? Put yourself in Dr. Leonard's place. How would you like a bunch of living room quarterbacks telling you how to play in the NFL? The guy's an innovator, he's enthusiastic, he believes Kickzie will not only be profitable but has components that can enhance our lives, and he is experienced in the patent process.

Also, there is no company name mentioned and it's perfectly legal and proper to inform your investors on latest developments, including if discussions are occurring with a F50 company. It would be dumb if shareholders had no clue whatsoever what venture/partnership efforts were being made to go from patent to market. And if it is proper for shareholders to know, then it must also be made available to the public or you violate the law. Nothing improper or poorly done here at all.

There's nothing wrong with contrarian views. I welcome them because I want to know everything I can about a company a may invest in. But I wish contrarian views would be a little more well considered. Some of the contrarian stuff on this board doesn't even allow for simple things like patience.