For October, 2006
Despite his subsequent attempts to rewrite history, the fact is Dr. Tiller was willing to have me develop his UED devices because from the day I reviewed his laboratory program in March, he learned more about UEDs—such as the crippling manufacturing flaws in the devices he was using–from me than I did from him.
Note the amateurish form of his proposal—their ‘intellectual property’ is not defined—with capricious gating terms inflexible and impossible (50% of gross!) to bring to any experienced investor. And this was after review by a purported Finance professional.
The question never answered is that if Dr. Tiller were ultimately so concerned about untoward uses of the IIED—one of the nominal excuses for his vague, chaos-creating prime directive—why in the first place did he intentionally publish the Ally design in his book CAC specifically to gain the broadest attention?
The upshot of that a) apparently unauthorized and self-immolating Ally schematic printing, b) a half year of disinterest if not deception as to who actually invented and owned the technology he was attempting to sell, together with c) this deeply unrealistic LOI, demonstrated an unusual level of confusion with intellectual property management virtually guaranteeing habitual business failure. My associates and I could not accept this unmitigated risk in a partner, so readily ended the negotiation.