Replies to post #581 on VIASPACE Green Energy Inc (VGREF)

[hedge_fun]

I never reached a conclusion. I asked a question.

Either you are implying it, or you are not. I put that word in BOLD for your benfit, not mine.

I know you are implying that a 1000 acres must be under cultivation in Singapore, or that it could be, since they haven't said anything about it, right?

They have that EFFECTIVE way of telling us things, by not telling us, right?

I heard that on the another board over a year ago. It was a real hush hush deal with DP then. The BIG question was IF THERE WAS ENOUGH GKG TO GO AROUND with the HUGE interest.

Well we all know how that turned out, don't we?

[hedge_fun]

The LICENSE and the SEC

On October 21, 2008, VIASPACE Inc., our parent company (“VIASPACE”), and we entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with Sung Hsien Chang ("Chang"), and China Gate Technology Co., Ltd., a Brunei Darussalam company ("Licensor"). Under the Purchase Agreement, we agreed to acquire 100% of IPA BVI, and the entire equity interest of IPA China from Chang, the sole shareholder of IPA BVI and IPA China. In exchange, VIASPACE agreed to pay $16 million in a combination of cash, and newly-issued shares of VIASPACE and our ordinary shares. In addition, VIASPACE issued shares of its common stock to Licensor and in exchange Licensor sub-licensed certain fast growing grass technology to IPA China.


During the registration of VGREF, the SEC had a few questions about the license and it's TERMS.

"We have a sublicense relationship with respect to the Giant King Grass license." page 16

5. Please revise this risk factor to address whether the original licensor is aware of and has consented to the sublicense of the intellectual property to the Giant King Grass from China Gate Technology to IPA China. Please also disclose the term of China Gate Technology’s license for the intellectual property.

Response: The risk factor has been revised to reflect that the original licensor is aware of and has consented to the sublicense of the intellectual property to the Giant King Grass from China Gate to IPA China. We have also been informed that no term has been specified in the China Gate license.

Corporate History, page 25

6. Please update the disclosure on page 25 to explain that the parties have agreed to waive China Gate's obligation to assign its license for the intellectual property to the Giant King Grass to IPA China and therefore IPA China will not receive a direct license from the original licensor of such intellectual property pursuant to this transaction.


Response: We have updated the disclosure on page 25 accordingly. A paragraph will be added to page 7 and 25 which reads:

“We sublicense our intellectual property to the Giant King Grass from China Gate which licenses the intellectual property from the original licensor. China Gate has informed us that they have an exclusive license to the Giant King Grass in Guangdong province and North America and have granted us an exclusive sublicense to the same region. However, we do not have a direct relationship with the holder of the intellectual property, any material adverse effect to the Giant King Grass license held by our sublicensor would affect our rights as the sublicensee.”

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1...