pom, I did not say he is aligned at the min but he would be and the share price has gone down over 50% when PB change the conversion terms it may go down a bit but it would then be in his best interest to help it go up from then on like you say he does not care at the min it is a loan or if he converts he will care like I do and I hope when he does it's a good thing because he would be hoping that he will make money
as for the IP, i can not answer the question as I don't know at the min what are registered or not
Boo- its your prerogative to believe what KA says, being pragmatic how on earth could Phe enter the coal gasification market anyway / Let's also get real KA is not to going to do anything to step on PB's shoes.
As you have a k line of communication with KA I would ask him where the patent and/or IP rights are registered so you can check them for yourself. I note you have completely ignored this part of my post.
If you truly believe that the Phe share price will not adjust if Bond converts, I think you are in for a very nasty surprise.
Come on Boo- Bond is hardly aligned and as you say in teh same boat as ordinary shareholders. Ordinary shareholders are not involved in the dealings between Bond and KA. Bond can take this down anytime- you can't ?
pomander they are not exclusivity rights to pro ore KA has told me that and if PB converts that a good thing we will have no debt and PHE share price has already factored in that potential so that would be very good news he would be in the same boat as the shareholders which you have said lots of times he is not so you can not have it both ways can you
Boo- if were you I would get in touch with KA and ask him exactly what form these IP rights are in. I have checked the Aussie Govt Patent Office website and the only patent registered to Ore Pro Pty Ltd is for treatment of green pellets using microwave energy granted in 2007. Maybe they registered in another country?
Also Boo, keep in mind that PB will own >50% of Phe if he converts and who know if he will change the conversion terms again- PB is therefore giving up IP rights predominantly to himself.
I am also sorry to inform you that when you provide a licence to exploit the intellectual property rights in the PHE-G3 (i) Australia and New Zealand and (ii) worldwide for coal gasification projects, that provides Ore-Pro with exclusivity for use of the unit for coal gasification. Normally a licencee pays an upfront milestone and a royalty but in this case Phe receives the IP rights for a unit that it has funded and no royalties from any coal gasification that Ore-Pro may undertake.
It is a horrible one way deal, however you slice it up, and that is because Bond holds all the cards and always has done. KA is his puppet.
NO, not all we have some they have some IPs they will give PHE the ones we have for free and we will do the same so we both have a working unit they can not use the G3 unit without them giving use a working unit but if we got anyone to containerise the unit and test it until we pay for the work they would have the rights to the IPs if we did not pay the £180,000 so what's the different so it a win-win for both of us but they can only use it for coal gasification and not waste to energy but if we did want to do coal gasification we can their rights will not be exclusive
So you agree with me- Phe shareholders via placings have funded the development of the unit whilst Ore-Pro retain all the intellectual property rights. So right now Phe has absolutely nothing of any value. It is a completely worthless company wholly dependant upon Ore- Pro failing to ship the unit by 31st March 2017 Ore-Pro to deliver to PowerHouse a deed of assignment of all intellectual property rights in the PHE-G3 or unless it can raise funding to repay the convertible loan notes.
As I said- has anyone checked these IP rights- presumably they are registered in the name of Ore-Pro in Australia?
"I would question why and how Ore-Ore has any intellectual property rights at all"
Because rights, in the context of engineers solving engineering problems, in much the same way as a composer or recording artist, are granted at the point of conception to the engineer(s) solving the challenges.
Most employment contracts will ensure that the rights that would otherwise be assigned to the individual engineers become assigned to the company they are working for.
In the terms of contracts between organisations (Ore Pro and PHE) it would be a matter for contract. The rights to any incidental engineering challenges solved by Ore Pro engineers would stay with Ore Pro without the contract.
Hopefully that explains why an agreement is needed. As to why it needed to be issued in an RNS, I'm guessing it's purely because certain posters on THIS VERY BOARD have been speculating that Ore Pro would retain some rights. This RNS clarifies that rights will be transferred when the bill is paid.
Boo- I understand you wish to cling on to even the smallest of positives, but I have a very different interpretation of what is a very brief, lacking in detail RNS, which refers to a very complex situation. The agreement is clearly designed to protect Ore-Pro from Phe having any legal recourse over who owns the IP rights should a dispute arise in the future.
It also appears to be an agreement dreamt up by KA & PB in tandem with little, or I suspect, no legal input whatsoever.
I would question why and how Ore-Ore has any intellectual property rights at all. It has been ridiculously compared to a recording artist arrangement on here. The analogy I would use is a pharmaceutical company developing a new drug- third party laboratories are routinely used as part of that process but no IP rights are bestowed upon them. All Phe should really have of value at this stage for all the cash stomped up by shareholders are the full IP rights to a potential groundbreaking technology but that is not the case. I can only assume that Bond demanded them to continue his support under the engineering partnership agreement, the terms and conditions of which no one has seen – so be warned on that front.
Ore-Pro is a company that has achieved as far as I can see absolutely nothing of commercial substance, why are they getting IP rights when Phe are funding the work?
I should also draw your attention to the fact that the terms of the agreement are only invoked if Bond’s Ore-Pro are unable to get the unit in a fit state for containerised shipping by 31st March 2017.
There is absolute silence on what happens to the unit if it is not ready by 31st March – does it remain in Aussie forever or is it shipped at the earliest opportunity after 31st March.
I would also suggest that if it is not ready for shipping by 31st March, it never will be, and clearly further cost will be incurred.
We have no idea what form the IP takes –(1) patents granted? (2)Patents pending? (3) Patents in whose name? These are absolutely critical issue and shareholder s are totally in the dark
I am afraid everything points to Phe be left with a pretty worthless IP come March 2017, and a unit stuck in Aussie and no cash left whilst Bond will pursue his interests in coal gasification.
I would be very wary of deals cooked up between KA and PB because one thing is for sure is the ingredients will ensure a recipe that is very much to their liking and not shareholders.
With the derampers on here, is that a few months ago they were getting all jumpy about IPRs and asking questions about whether Ore Pro will retain some rights to G3 unit. Now we had an RNS laying out the situation pretty clearly they are now getting jumpy about why they issued that RNS!
Well maybe some of the deramping on here gets back to KA and he's addressing the points, and like true trolls they brush over the answers and raise more questions.
I made the mistake of unfiltering them because it seemed for a minute the debate might be about to grow up. I do not that the debate altered when it looked like there might be a determined push on the SP. But, just as shorters sense blood as the bid weakens these derampers are back at it now with a vengeance.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.