CF3: i was trying to make a reasoned constructive post - not bash seo or anything similar. however, bprg have insurance for costs, seo don't. seo have already had to pay bprg costs and other costs are payable once assessed. i therefore don't accept your second para.
if seo proceed with the appeal that is their decision. all i was trying to say was what i see as the comments of many including seo investors and people making analyst notes on seo. they don't place value on ingel, want to see seo focusing on core activities, don't want to see costs, have anxiety about the cc (costs, damages and credibility). as a bprg investor i am more than happy if seo go ahead with the appeal. as i say bprg is insured and the one technology that could use the patents is not progressing at present (huge progress is being seen on the other technologies).
i'm not interesting in a slaggin match. i was trying to make a constructive comment that said that imo seo could benefit (and be stronger) from doing a deal and that i believe that market would react positively to seo being focused on its core activities and without the contingent liabilities. i was upfront in admitting my position
Stora Enso stock quotes
Stora Enso stock charts
Follow this thread
