% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Research Frontiers Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • montuno2 montuno2 Nov 9, 2012 1:11 PM Flag

    *** Fee Income? No Sales? ***

    The "fee income" is part of the ongoing REFR fraud. It no doubt comes from the REFR "R&D expenses." Generally, it seems to be 10-13% of yearly R&D. One can assume that REFR gives "R&D "funds to a company who use part of it to buy an SPD "license" and pockets the rest. The reason for this simple exercise is that REFR can show something in its SEC filing; and that something is "license income." The receiver of R&D funds makes a few bucks and then disappears. In fact this is the best evidence that this suspected gambit is true; dozens of companies have bought "licenses" over the years. Not one has invested their own money in developing an SPD application. Good scam in my opinion.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Hi tunaturdo2,

      I see you are still lying. A good Act of Confession would do you good. And then go and sin no more.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to hawaiijohn2
      • So, Little John, can you tell us that no "licensee" ever received R&D funds from REFR and then "bought" a license to supposedly develop an SPD application. You see here is where an important consideration should be embraced: it is called common sense.

        REFR has announced dozens of so called licensees over the years; each one has been gushed over by you and the other phony " strong buy" IDs. Each one of them buys a licensee which is recorded in the SEC filings. This gives REFR some sort of income to claim (as there are no products there can be no royalty income). However not a single licensee invests any money into the application they claim they bought a license for. How many companies would use their own money for a license and then never invest in developing an application?

        This, Slimey John, is a simple common sense deduction. As this is not a court of law we need not prove anything, merely suggest it and the reader can see if it fits with their parameters of common sense, and then act accordingly.

        I think your road to providing an alternative view is far more difficult. Give it a try.

3.07+0.10(+3.37%)4:00 PMEDT