N.Dixon,
I have some healthy skepticism re: REFR...
1) You're stating that the licensees aggregate (meaning, all of 'em; consolidated) have actual sales (not merely sales projections) that exceed $1B (US dollars), and that (by inference) 100% of these $1B in sales (or reasonably thereabouts) employ SPD technologies to which REFR is entitled to 5% to 10% royalty payments; and
2) REFR solely owns the 5% to 10% (as measured in US dollars via the royalty payments) of the SPD technology (via patents, copyrights, or legal contracts), and that REFR owes nothing of that same 5% to 10% in royalties to some/any competitor, or that no competitor owns any of the specific SPD technology which the licensees intend to use in the product(s) comprising their aggregate $1B in sales...
Have I got that correct? If so, then...
If the contracts are signed, sealed and delivered then why is a 5% to 10% range used to indicate REFR revenues instead of the actual accurate percentage(s), which (at least to my unsophisticated thought processes) should be known by now if everything were signed, sealed, delivered, etcetera??? Do you understand my point and my skepticism? This doesn't pass the ol' smell test. I don't know why, but it doesn't smell right to me. Hence, my sincere skepticism...
Disclosure: I have no financial interests in REFR or any competitor (not long, not short, nothing fancy). Merely curious as to how the whole situation will eventually play out...
KJC |
