Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


It sounds like there's a bunch of missing information, but it's hard
to tell. In any case, you got your stuff done? Good for you.

It's one of the reasons I got out of doing for companies... too much
trouble with engineers/scientists.


There's nothing missing other than that in your misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
I was not applying for a patent. I was selling a company.

Eisboch


Ah... sorry. Missed the first sentence. That can be a very difficult
situation when the company holds patents. Why do you think it was
ridiculous for the attorneys, who don't know about your business, to
ask specific questions about the documents you gave them? It seems
like you weren't that prepared or were being a bit stubborn, which I
found to be typical of people in your situation. I know it's your
"baby" and all that, but sometimes hoops have to be jumped through.

I'm not sure what the gruff CEO has to do with the patent attorneys'
efforts, but ok. Sounds like you confronted him through them and you
got what you wanted. So, what's your beef?

--
Nom=de=Plume


I am sitting here chuckling at your response. Either you don't read
what people write or
you completely miss the primary point.

Condensed for your understanding:

1. Two day conference with patent attorneys at the *beginning* of a 3
month due diligence process.
2. Attorneys then leave to do whatever they do.
3. Said attorneys wait until the *day before* the closing to come back
to review a 3 inch thick
stack of patents by others they had dug up to see if there were any
infringments on our part.

By 8 pm we were barely halfway through them with about a 15-20
discussion on each one. Closing scheduled for 9 am the following morning.

Was that easier to understand?

Eisboch



And if the attorneys had more time it would have been a 5 inch thick stack.