Member Info for Florida

Twix - I've fished out part of the agreement for the transfer of VEC and the contract relating to Gulatis agreement. I bet you a million dollars (just joking) that VEC is operating somewhere, mayebe under a different name, somehow, under the leadership of Gulati. Utilising QRI/QRD technology that belongs to us. Would be interesting to find out. Would also be interetsing to find out, especially if they are now a million dollar company that legally belongs to us. All good fun. One other thought, do you remember Terry Bond and the accountant (can't think of his name) set up a company in North Africa for no apparent reason, and by chance one of the shareholders got wind of it. Makes yo think doesn't it. "It is the intention of VEC to raise external funding. As part of the VEC Transfer, Dr Sandeep Gulati has agreed not to sell, transfer or in any other way encumber his VEC shares until such time as VEC has entered into a first binding term sheet with investors who commit to invest in VEC at not less than a pre-money valuation of VEC of US$20 million ("the VEC Funding"). If the VEC Funding of at least US$5 million at a pre-money valuation of VEC of US$20 millionis not completed by the first anniversary of the VEC Transfer, the grant of the QRI Technology licence and associated Oil and Gas service contracts will revert to ViaLogy. With regard to the VEC Funding, preliminary discussions are currently taking place with a number of US based institutions as well as with certain existing ViaLogy customers who have indicated interest in possible participation in the funding of VEC. Any such funding of VEC will naturally dilute the retained interest in VEC of both ViaLogy and the VEC founding management team. The level of dilution will be dependent on both the scale of funding and the valuation ascribed to VEC immediately prior to that funding. Under the terms of the VEC Transfer, ViaLogy has the right to appoint one representative board member to VEC in addition to Dr Sandeep Gulati and has the right, but not the obligation, to co-invest in any future VEC fundraisings for a period of five years from the conditions of the VEC Transfer being satisfied to maintain a position up to 20 per cent. of the fully diluted capital. The Board believe that the proposed VEC Funding will better reflect the value of ViaLogy's oil & gas business and QuantumRD technology. It is anticipated that such sources of funding will also add management expertise and strategic industry relationships to enhance VEC's operations. It is emphasised that the Intellectual Property (IP) of QRI and QuantumRD will remain the wholly-owned property of ViaLogy PLC but will be exclusively licensed out to VEC for the Applications."

Good to hear you are still in touch with dad, he hasn't completely drove you mad then. Heres a question Twix - When we became Premaitha, nothing actually changed apart from the name. We are still, in reality, Vialogy, with a different name. In theory, everything that Vialogy owned belongs to Premaitha, including QuantumRD. All rights to this technology were signed over to Vialogy under the terms if Gulati could not get funding to take the technology forward, which he did not, we would own it, lock stock and barrel, patents included. The question is what happened to it, and can anything be salvaged for future use?

Twix - I used to thoroughly enjoy our head to heads and if I'm honest miss the mutually agreeable confrontation. Agreeable in the sense that we were both fighting for the same cause but with a slightly different view, enjoyable all the same. Yes, "The List". It became quite controversial in a small way. I don't think it really helped the share price to any great degree, but it certainly boosted morale and gave us a weapon to hit back against the hyena's. I have to say I'm not a holder of these shares but my father, who is quite possibly the oldest man in the world (just joking dad) has a bundle. So I thought I would bring some light into a world of darkness and give you guys something to think about. I did have shares a while back and do remember from the outset that this was not going to be a quick buck making enterprise. What clouded the issue somewhat was the exaggerated expectations of shareholders, caused by the submission to AIM of Optibiotics at the same time as Premaitha. Optobiotics shot up to 80p and everyone thought we would follow suit, alas. The long game was clearly apparent as soon as the first litigation was put forward. Everyone knew at that point, the situation was not going to be resolved in quick time. In terms of where this is headed, well if I bought in now at 4.5p I certainly would not lose my money, that's for sure. In terms of timescale, I don't think 10 months for a multiple of 10 at least is too long to wait. I know I'm a Rose spectacled chap and I am bias for my father sake, but I really believe this is potentially a billion dollar company in the making and I wish everyone very prosperous coming year. Great to talk Twix, keep up the good work. Yours Sincerely Scorpionking

Now we all know companies do not withhold price sensitive information from shareholders. I mean, the Vialogy bod never ever withheld information from shareholders, did they. God forbid. Excuse me Twix, I'm being facetious. My Rose Tinted view is my way of livening you guys up. You are all so god damned dull and miserable, it's like posting on a board of the dead. I thought you might have twigged by now who I really am. You know me well. Remember the list?

Agree Twix, appeal date is not in our hands. However, the appeal date announcement is, and they may be withholding that information in respect of the 321 result.

Come on guys, I woke you all up from a very deep sleep. You should be thanking me, or at least give me some feedback, objective criticism, anything.

First, you must ask yourself, is the appeal date late? If it is, then why?. If it's not late, then the outcome of 321 has less chance of influencing a decision by the bod whether to appeal or not. If the 321 case goes completely against us, the bod may very well decide to throw the towel in and forget the appeal altogether. On the other hand, it may reinforce there original belief that the patents were in fact secure. I know the first thing you would say is that 321 is a completely separate legal action. I agree it is, but only as part of the overall application process. The 321 outcome must in some way influence later legal proceedings in actions of the same scientific procedure.

Curious to know why an appeal date is not yet set. could be they are waiting for the outcome of 321?. If it is thrown out, it may not be necessary to continue with the appeal.

Are we expecting this 321 hearing to be thrown out on day one?.

That's of course if Steven Little was telling the truth and not telling porkies from the outset.

I was seeking more to do with whether we had legal grounds to pursue such a claim.

Thanks for that Twix, at least I got a reply. In actual fact, I don't think this would hinder the price because it would be us taking the legal action with everything to gain.

It also must be pretty obvious my intellectually cryptic post must, of course, have everyone so baffled that to decipher it would be an unimaginable achievement, for and including Twix. This is a simple question, now open to anyone who might have the slightest view on the subject - Having lost the case in November, what would happen if we also lost the appeal. Could we then sue those who prepared the patents? An analogy would be - If I bought a house and the surveyor missed a fault in the structure which caused the house to fall down, we could most certainly sue the surveyor. All surveyors have insurance against events like this, so I cannot see any reason why Premaitha cannot pursue a case against losses incurred.

Obviously, Flipper's head is entered too far into the arse of ignorance. I put the same question to Twix.

Flipper - I remember watching a video in the early formative days of Premaitha where Steven Little spoke with regards to a company that was employed to scrutinize and full proof the patents before presenting to the Patent Office. Now I am trying to do this from memory so I may not be completely accurate with what was said but it was something like "and if the guys we had employed to check these patents have done their job", or words to that effect. My question is - What indemnity insurance would be in place to protect both the scrutinizer and Premaitha?.

This is just an observation but take a look at the last 9 months RNS news. Take out the litigation, that, of course, we all know about. All the others read like the fastest growing company listed on AIM. I can't believe the progress they have made in such a short time. If that is the pace they are achieving now, what has this next year in store for us. Remeber, when the full year results are announced on the 31st March, they are always 6 months behind. IMVO

Twix - In answer to your first point - As I have said, if we lose, all the cards are laid on the table and we all know where we stand. If in the meantime Illumia decide to push forward another European lawsuit, we would simply not contest because we would have no major position in that area and nothing to lose. It is certainly not in our interest to chase recognition in areas we cannot earn revenue from. Another point to support my argument is the 50p option. Lets put ourselves in that place. I'm Adam Renaulds and you are Steven Little. Just lost the appeal in the UK then wallop, just handed a new suit in say Spain or France or wherever in Europe. I say to you, how much do we lose if we don't contest?, and you say "maximum 10% on top of 10% we've just lost in the UK. But lets not forget our 50p options. If we fold on Europe The share price could surely rise past 50p", And I say, well we should be thinking about the livelihood of our 58 working staff and the interest of shareholders, but hey, 40m shares between employees and bod @ 50p = �20m "no-brainer". You seem to be overly concerned about this Manchester hub. We are an international company. Whats stopping us setting up a hub strategically placed elsewhere outside UK jurisdiction?, if of course we wanted to. As you, I have been in this game for a long time and nothing surprises me, always expect the unexpected I agree but don't lose sight of the goal posts. I've always had the view to put to the back of the mind when considering buyouts in particular. They are extremely infrequent and very hard to predict (no offense Flipper). Just concentrate on the core parameters within the fundamentals where expectation can be achieved as a worst-case scenario. I agree, any number of variables with this one, but all end as no disaster for company. As long as they are earning money from non litigated area's, they can never go under.

Twix - With all due respect, the result of the appeal, win or lose, brings clarity. At that point, both shareholders and the market will know where we stand. If we lose, payments and restrictions whatever they may be will be made clear. I would advocate that after the Genome debarkel, the company would have already diversified from chasing European clients to clients with no threat of litigation. That would include all of Europe as being a potential litigation threat. The Manchester base is irrelevant in this respect because the market share in terms of world coverage is so small. Think of it this way, what if they decided tomorrow to give up the UK and the whole of Europe. Do you think the company would collapse or would the share price rise to 50p. Your negative view on this hinders the vision of outcome. We are looking at where this company will stand after conclusion either way. If we win, well I need say no more. It does not discount further litigation entirely but will create a president that will deter Illumina from chasing a lost cause in an area where Premaitha has very little infiltration. The company has shown that it is playing the game way ahead of the opposition by placing the emphasis on targeting International rather than European alliances. To take this one step further, I would suggest that they would have already seen that using Manchester as an international hub could become a liability and would have taken appropriate measures accordingly.

All this legal talk is irrelevant if shareholder strategy is long term. Ten months from now, the worst case position can only impose a diminishing 15% loss of gross earnings with a �2m bill. The end result would allow us a position whereby earnings thereon would include 85% minimum of our present gross turnover, which could be already at break even. This is not a Vialogy senario where the main unique gadget that drives shareholder sentiment suddenly becomes obsolete. This is an already captured market with a product that gives very near to 100 accuracy and very little scope for aggressive competitive betterment. This to me is better than printing money, we just have to wait for an inevitable outcome in our favour whatever the result in court. Just to put this in context. Under normal circumstances, every RNS notification of new contracts would improve share price, increase the gross turnover and add to the overall capitalisation value. We have experienced none of this, in fact, if anything the price has been driven backwards. The lifting of litigation removes all price backtracking and shows the clear capitalised value of the company based on its market share, gross turnover and revenue produced. I strongly believe Adam Renaulds will redeem his options and to do this he needs 50p for 30 days, what effectively means 55p to 60p. Not a bad return for a 10-month wait. This is one to put into your ISA and wait for your tax-free windfall.

That's a coincidence, a bored Saturday afternoon for you and me both it seems. Within one minute of perusing Flippers offering, there you are as if following me with a camera. Well, Twix nice to see you are still with us. Unfortunately, I'm not with you both on this one. Cannot see the Bod holding back info, priority must be to reassure LTH's that the game is still on as MR Holmes would say. The last thing they would want is for a few to start selling on the basis of unassured contract gains. That last RNS was in my view extremely reassuring that contracts were still in the pipeline and deals being done. Besides that, withholding share sensitive info might get them into murky water with FSA. One contract a month in the winter period is not bad going as far as I'm concerned and not bad sized contracts at that.