Nick wrote:

Can anyone explain this statement, which apparently explains why they
are fairly unknown:
"Robertson had licensed the screw in England but the party with which he
was dealing intentionally put the company under and purchased the rights
from the trustee thus circumventing Robertson."

It seems to suggest that he signed away the rights to a company in
England to make the things, the owner of which then intentionally put
the company into receivership so that he could purchase the rights to
the screw from his company, but at the same time leave all the
obligations that originally came with those rights behind in the defunct
company. He was then free to make the things without paying the license
fees.

The description in the wiki does not quite ring true however. Since
granting a license to a firm to manufacture something does not usualy
deprive you (the owner) from either revoking that license or granting
another to someone else... (unless it was a very badly worded
"exclusive" licence). Most contracts are worded to become void should
either party be placed into receivership (other than for reorganisation
purposes)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/