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.
This kind of "funny" booking of income is not new. It's called a "Lazy Susan".
It is what has been exposed at Hewlett Packard this morning.
HP has a superior corporate governance. REFR, ah, Not so much!