This is the CEO who clearly stated this was a contract and all backlogs were signed contracts. June 21 AGM .
I for one would love to know when the "deal" was terminated . Also find it "strange " that the basic terms weren't confirm in Oct 2021 prior to the press release. One would think ownership of ip is a day one condition which should be confirmed as part of bid conditions before any quotes were even made to the customer.
Funny that PYR brags about patents and just "missed it" on this one
HARJAY wrote:dinno
Are you implying the co.is lying about why they cut the deal ??
" Never seen someone so gullible as you james "
"....Essentially, if we agreed to the Client’s demand, all the IP we developed in Phase 1 could be used by someone else in Phase 2. As a company who has invested decades in building its intellectual capital and assembling a team of world-leading experts, this was unacceptable to us on many levels, and not in the best interest of shareholders.
Sadly, we will not prove it out on this project, but rest assured, we are, as we speak, pursuing similar opportunities in the USA.”
If you are , hope you have indefutable proof !! and are you prepared to present that proof here for all of us to see ??V