RE: Gardin's 2024 revenue claim21 Feb 2026 09:24
Mickydj: You post
" On the Naik thesis point: ( to which i seem to remember you have had numerous posts of yours deleted previously by admin, for misleading statements.)
Repeating that it is “inconceivable” Gardin didn’t know about prior art is not evidence of intent. Patent applications routinely encounter prior art challenges and examiner objections ,that is part of the normal prosecution process."
Correct Micky you had my posts removed. There is nothing misleading about Naik's thesis, as evidence of Prior Art it is indisputable.
A person's intent can only be determined by the person themselves, thankfully the law is not stymied by that obvious difficulty. From AI
" Determining intent in law, or mens rea (guilty mind), involves establishing a person’s mental state, objective, or purpose behind an action. It is crucial for assigning criminal liability and is determined by analyzing direct evidence (confessions, statements) or circumstantial evidence (conduct, planning, consequences). Intent can be direct, oblique (foreseeing virtual certainty), general, or specific"
In civil law. intent can be determined by the "balance of probability" an investor could sue because of a directors statements which caused a loss to the investor.
In criminal law the test is more strenuous.
This whole discussion began because you claimed, effectively, a director could say in interview practically anything he liked and the only words that an investor could take as 'gospel' were in an RNS, for example
"Companies regularly communicate commercial ambition and timelines in interviews and promotional material. That is not the same thing as issuing binding financial guidance to the market."
To be clear any company director's statements aren't liability free because they are outside RNS officialdom.
Garden has suggested "revenue" in spoken interviews and as a director he is liable for what he says.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
