MFST/Lack of non-litigant licenses
The MSFT story is another reason why I never believed that the "on going VHC vs AAPL litigation" was the reason that VHC never sold any non-litigant licenses.
MSFT was perfectly willing and able to pay VHC $223 Million to END the litigation.
Yes, they faced some uncertainties wrt the trial/award/outcomes......
BUT, more than that, they WANTED TO KEEP VHC TECHNOLOGY in their products.
Especially SKYPE, for which they ended up paying VHC an extra $23 MM.
Look what MSFT has accomplished over the years, especially wrt the PP$ comparison.
WHY wouldn't dozens of other companies want to parlay the same licenses into their own phenomenal success??
Never made sense to me.
After OUR previous discussions here about non-litigant licenses several years ago, VHC added a DISclaimer to their 10-K, basically allowing themselves an "OUT" wrt the lack of non-litigant sales, on account of litigation issues.
The virtual BLACKOUT from the Cove for the past few years wrt shareholder communications
and non-litigant licenses also disappoints.
To me, the decade long lack of non-litigant licenses is the single most important reason that the VHC share price never gains any LT traction, even with some very sizable
legal awards such as MSFT and AAPL IV.
WHAT will happen after AAPL V??