oogee, trying to sell an otherwise unproven tech in regards to earnings revenue (not the tech itself) acts as a double edged sword. if the company doesn't make the attempts to show there is strong revenue, how would companies who are looking to buy the tech be able to justify paying a hefty price--it simply wouldn't happen and if it did, those companies who are looking to do so are rather foolish and will in the end most likely end up getting burnt. the other option however, is this--no signs of revenue and a tech which while is good will draw interest but companies who are interested will make low ball offers and justifiably so--in which case, shareholders shouldn't expect anything else. either way whether one licenses out or not the issue remains the same--the company continues to work towards fulfilling its technological milestones and to say that licensing is costly doesn't really make sense because money will always be needed to advance technology whether you license out or sell. if the tech or some parts of it are ready to go that/those part(s) will most likely be licensed out or completely sold off which is what we would want because contrary to what you are saying these moves would bring money in, money that could be further used to keep building on the tech if that is desired or acquire other portfolios as you have raised. the bottom line is that the share structure has to be managed effectively without which this will collapse--to keep raising shares without having some sort of revenue will only create dilution and with it either a flat s/p or a drop in share value where those who bought in/cost averaged at lower prices will benefit and those who are buying in now will not until things move to where they need to. licensing actually is the best way to do it--unless, your tech and growth has peaked and shows signs of decline--in which case that is when company's in truth should consider selling their stake otherwise new shareholders will keep questioning whether management is really sincere or is using new investors to make money from. look i invested in a company (qsolar) who is also most likely looking for a buyout--but they have always generated revenue even though shareholders like myself questioned their way of going about it--which is manufacturing--i was of the view of licensing because manufacturing is very costly (when i talk about advancement and development of tech--that doesn't mean manufacturing--i would avoid that like a plague unless you know you will have healthy profit margins)--and q solar is apparently proving me wrong at least it appears to be--and they are growing (using a combination of equity and debt financing when intially they were only using equity financing)--the point is nobody will be interested in buying companies either in part or as whole unless they show there is excellent and strong revenue potential, but as i said for those who are--they are either really foolish and will get burnt or they will lowball their offerings--there's just no other way to it--we would be fooling ourselves if we believe that you can just have a technology expect hefty buyout prices without any revenue--not likely to happen (near impossible) if you can give me one example where this has happened and the buyout price was hefty--i will stand corrected. at this point i will not be looking to pay more than .50 because as far as i'm concerned it will not be worth it until more tangible developments come--things like companies stepping forward and showing interest in what there is over here. it is one thing to say that there is interest and another thing for it to be shown--this showing revealation i suspect will come in time given that management is talking with companies but things may not turn out as expected--so that is in truth the risk--the more that you can show there is strong revenue potential by engaging in licensing, selling chunks of your ip, a combination of the two whatever than those risks start to go down and correlatively interest will continue to rise. glta