Absolutely Georgie, and welcome aboard. What a breath of fresh air you are LOL.
Has it occurred to you also that one strategy of the culprits might be to partner financially with parties interested in the demise of Spooz and to use the reality of what you described in your marvelously well reasoned post as a weapon in its own right? As it were, gaining financing to extend the litigation to literally outlast Spooz's resources? In that strategy, the end game would have the culprits walking away with their stolen code and being unrestrained because Spooz would have sunk beneath the waves. By outlasting them, their thievery would have the result of their succeeding even despite having been fired for theft. The last thing these fellows ever expected, IMHO, was for Paul Strickland to have the grit to have started all over again.... and as the SHM showed, to have actually succeeded in re-inventing the whole schebang from the ground up.
Personally, I think that is why there is such an outcry hereabouts at the "revelation" thet SpoozToolz Pro, under the direction of John Unwin, is an entirely new product. This set of eventualities appear to me to have the dual benefits of both endemnifying Spooz against future loss and of freeing them to proceed, unfettered by FINRA; Freeing because the rules apply to what is being litigated, not to new code created entirely separetly after the freeze on the old code was placed on them as a consequence of the litigation.
I think that whether the lawsuit goes Spooz's way or not, by inventing the product from the ground up unconnected whatsoever from the prior product's code base, Spooz executes an end run around the above described strategy of trying to outlast them. I think that the last thing these guys expected was for Spooz to succeed in re-coding from the ground up. This is why I'm so adamant that the new code is entirely unfettered by past code. IMHO, it has to be a pure new bit of code or the gambit of reinventing SpoozToolz from the ground up fails of its own weight.
And some speculative criticisms have come out tonight asking what possible reason these guys could have had of doing this given that they could have made such a killing as vested shareholders. Well, its seems pretty clear that it has taken Paul Strickland at least 7 years of his life to get to this point. Thats a rather costly thing to have done. So, what is hard to understand about thieves looking at this and seeing that they can walk away owning the whole shooting match without having to have spent all that time and money? And if they manage to walk away with the code, they own the whole thing.... not just a piece of it. There is a whole lot of money on the table and I fail to see what is so unclear about why greedy people would engage in dishonesty when there is so much money that they can end up with.
Imperial Whazoo
"Just my opinions, folks. Do your own due diligence & make your own decisions. DO NOT... I repeat... DO NOT make any investment decisions on my comments. They are my opinions. That's all they are... OPINIONS."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
