OT Re DCHT--<<I pointed you to the patent information.>> You pointed me to an SEC filing that was long on generalities, and short on specifics. I saw no specific patent mentioned, although a license to an unnamed patent was mentioned.
SEC filings are attested to by the parties filing them, but are not subject to third party review, except in retrospect (i.e., as in lawsuits for fraudulence). SEC filings are not generally used as proof of the value of licenses.
I have read the pertinent parts of the filing (singular, with amendment) to which you pointed. I found no problem with it in factual terms, but found it lacking in specificity. Mentioned for instance was the Los Alamos exclusive license to which you referred. It was noted that the PEM fuel cell that was licensed was not large enough to power a car, for instance. The specific patent(s) covered were not listed, however. Or perhaps I missed something. It is hard to evaluate the value of something so vaguely stated. Maybe you can point me to a section I missed?
The spirit of these threads is that we help each other find the truth, for instance by pointing to specific relevant url's, and passages at those url's, and help interpret them. If it was up to each of us "to go and dig it out for yourself," there wouldn't be much point in these threads, would there?
This will be my last response on this colloquy, since we don't appear to be adding much to one another's knowledge.
Regards,
JS |
