InvestorsHub Logo

0whammies

07/27/21 1:27 PM

#54693 RE: quarinteen #54689

I hope someone at the company, or with Cozen, had the good sense to have kept samples of each unit from P M over the years, in case they've changed up their manufacturing process recently to something that doesn't infringe. If it did....

Quilmes

07/27/21 1:38 PM

#54695 RE: quarinteen #54689

Is not as simple as you make it sound mate.... what count as “logical” is not enough in a court of law. I know in our heads you think vapor and steam is caused by ignition but in a court of law the only thing that counts are “FACTS”..... now facts have to be proven and I get the feeling HCMC will be require to do a “proof of concept” to show without any doubts that there is ignition.
Now, to do a proof of concept you need a lot of money, you need to hire scientists, engineers, everything needs to be documented, those you hire need to have years of experience so that they findings can be taken seriously, etc... is not a cheap thing to do, it takes a long time and a lot of money.... and on top of that Phillip Morris has also the right to do their proof of concept to disprove HCMC results which adds even more time.
If Phillip Morris really wants to fight this then get ready to wait a long long long time, they can drag it for years.
On the other hand I’m not sure HCMC will be able to deal with the costs involved in having to do the proof of concept and dealing with the time it will take.
Be ready for another public offering coming to gather more money.
I want to be clear that I’m NOT saying HCMC will loose, I’m just saying is not as simple as you make it sound, just because you know that 1+1=2 you still have to prove it when it comes to a court of law and in this case is super expensive to do so.