Acacia Research Reports Record First Quarter Financial Results

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Acacia Research Corporation⁽¹⁾ (Nasdaq:ACTG) today reported results for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

“Acacia's success in completing over 770 licensing agreements covering 73 different technologies is generating new agreements with technology companies, universities, research centers, and large multinational companies based in the US, Europe, and Asia wanting to partner with us for the licensing of their patented technologies”

Acacia Research reported record quarterly license fee revenues of $39,772,000 during the first quarter of 2010, as compared to $16,957,000 in the comparable prior year quarter.

Trailing twelve-month revenues totaled $90.2 million as of March 31, 2010, as compared to $67.3 million as of December 31, 2009, $65.7 million at September 30, 2009, $63.4 million as of June 30, 2009 and $56.1 million as of March 31, 2009.

Acacia Research reported first quarter 2010 net income of $18,512,000, or $0.55 per diluted share, as compared to a quarterly net loss of $268,000, or $.01 per diluted share for the comparable prior year quarter. Included in first quarter 2010 net results are non-cash stock compensation and patent amortization charges totaling $3,598,000, as compared to $2,985,000 of non-cash charges in the comparable prior year quarter.

First quarter 2010 revenues included license fees from 40 new licensing agreements covering 29 of our technology licensing programs, as compared to 28 new licensing agreements covering 16 of our technology licensing programs in the comparable prior year quarter. First quarter 2010 revenues included initial license fee revenues for 13 of our technology licensing programs, as compared to initial license fees for 4 of our technology licensing programs in the comparable prior year quarter.

First quarter 2010 inventor royalties, including net income attributable to noncontrolling interests in operating subsidiary totaled $4,448,000, as compared to $5,377,000 in the comparable prior year quarter. First quarter 2010 contingent legal fees expenses were $4,407,000, as compared to $3,532,000 in the comparable prior year quarter. On a combined basis, inventor royalties, including net income attributable to noncontrolling interests in operating subsidiary, and contingent legal fees, as a percentage of total license fee revenues decreased to 22%, as compared to 53% in the comparable prior year quarter. The economic terms of the inventor agreements, operating agreements and contingent legal fee arrangements, if any, including royalty rates, contingent fee rates and other terms, vary across the patent portfolios owned or controlled by our operating subsidiaries. Inventor royalties, payments to noncontrolling interests in operating subsidiaries and contingent legal fees expenses fluctuate period to period, based on the amount of revenues recognized each period, the terms and conditions of license agreements executed each period and the mix of specific patent portfolios with varying economic terms generating revenues each period. Inventor royalties and contingent legal fees expenses will continue to vary significantly quarter to quarter based on the mix of license agreements and the terms and conditions of license agreements executed each period.

First quarter 2010 marketing, general and administrative expenses increased 18% to $6,332,000 (including non-cash stock compensation charges of $1,895,000) from $5,378,000 (including non-cash stock compensation charges of $1,920,000) in the comparable prior year quarter, primarily due to an increase in variable performance-based compensation costs.

First quarter 2010 litigation and licensing expenses-patents increased to $3,696,000 versus $1,708,000 in the comparable prior year quarter, due to an increase in litigation and licensing support related out of pocket expenses, third party technical consulting expenses, professional expert expenses and other litigation support and administrative costs incurred in connection with our investment in certain of our licensing and enforcement programs with trial dates scheduled for 2010, and a net increase in costs related to new licensing and enforcement programs commenced since the end of the prior year quarter. First quarter 2010 litigation and licensing expenses-patents decreased 34%, versus the $5.6 million of licensing expenses-patents recorded in the fourth quarter of 2009.

“Acacia accelerated its growth in the first quarter with a record 13 new licensing programs generating revenues and a record 11 new patent portfolios for future licensing, as we build our leadership position in patent licensing. Quarterly revenues will continue to be uneven,” commented Acacia Chairman and CEO, Paul Ryan.

“Acacia's success in completing over 770 licensing agreements covering 73 different technologies is generating new agreements with technology companies, universities, research centers, and large multinational companies based in the US, Europe, and Asia wanting to partner with us for the licensing of their patented technologies,” concluded Mr. Ryan.

Acacia Research Reports Record First Quarter Financial Results

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Acacia Research Corporation⁽¹⁾ (Nasdaq:ACTG) today reported results for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

“Acacia's success in completing over 770 licensing agreements covering 73 different technologies is generating new agreements with technology companies, universities, research centers, and large multinational companies based in the US, Europe, and Asia wanting to partner with us for the licensing of their patented technologies”

Acacia Research reported record quarterly license fee revenues of $39,772,000 during the first quarter of 2010, as compared to $16,957,000 in the comparable prior year quarter.

Trailing twelve-month revenues totaled $90.2 million as of March 31, 2010, as compared to $67.3 million as of December 31, 2009, $65.7 million at September 30, 2009, $63.4 million as of June 30, 2009 and $56.1 million as of March 31, 2009.

Acacia Research reported first quarter 2010 net income of $18,512,000, or $0.55 per diluted share, as compared to a quarterly net loss of $268,000, or $.01 per diluted share for the comparable prior year quarter. Included in first quarter 2010 net results are non-cash stock compensation and patent amortization charges totaling $3,598,000, as compared to $2,985,000 of non-cash charges in the comparable prior year quarter.

First quarter 2010 revenues included license fees from 40 new licensing agreements covering 29 of our technology licensing programs, as compared to 28 new licensing agreements covering 16 of our technology licensing programs in the comparable prior year quarter. First quarter 2010 revenues included initial license fee revenues for 13 of our technology licensing programs, as compared to initial license fees for 4 of our technology licensing programs in the comparable prior year quarter.

First quarter 2010 inventor royalties, including net income attributable to noncontrolling interests in operating subsidiary totaled $4,448,000, as compared to $5,377,000 in the comparable prior year quarter. First quarter 2010 contingent legal fees expenses were $4,407,000, as compared to $3,532,000 in the comparable prior year quarter. On a combined basis, inventor royalties, including net income attributable to noncontrolling interests in operating subsidiary, and contingent legal fees, as a percentage of total license fee revenues decreased to 22%, as compared to 53% in the comparable prior year quarter. The economic terms of the inventor agreements, operating agreements and contingent legal fee arrangements, if any, including royalty rates, contingent fee rates and other terms, vary across the patent portfolios owned or controlled by our operating subsidiaries. Inventor royalties, payments to noncontrolling interests in operating subsidiaries and contingent legal fees expenses fluctuate period to period, based on the amount of revenues recognized each period, the terms and conditions of license agreements executed each period and the mix of specific patent portfolios with varying economic terms generating revenues each period. Inventor royalties and contingent legal fees expenses will continue to vary significantly quarter to quarter based on the mix of license agreements and the terms and conditions of license agreements executed each period.

First quarter 2010 marketing, general and administrative expenses increased 18% to $6,332,000 (including non-cash stock compensation charges of $1,895,000) from $5,378,000 (including non-cash stock compensation charges of $1,920,000) in the comparable prior year quarter, primarily due to an increase in variable performance-based compensation costs.

First quarter 2010 litigation and licensing expenses-patents increased to $3,696,000 versus $1,708,000 in the comparable prior year quarter, due to an increase in litigation and licensing support related out of pocket expenses, third party technical consulting expenses, professional expert expenses and other litigation support and administrative costs incurred in connection with our investment in certain of our licensing and enforcement programs with trial dates scheduled for 2010, and a net increase in costs related to new licensing and enforcement programs commenced since the end of the prior year quarter. First quarter 2010 litigation and licensing expenses-patents decreased 34%, versus the $5.6 million of licensing expenses-patents recorded in the fourth quarter of 2009.

“Acacia accelerated its growth in the first quarter with a record 13 new licensing programs generating revenues and a record 11 new patent portfolios for future licensing, as we build our leadership position in patent licensing. Quarterly revenues will continue to be uneven,” commented Acacia Chairman and CEO, Paul Ryan.

“Acacia's success in completing over 770 licensing agreements covering 73 different technologies is generating new agreements with technology companies, universities, research centers, and large multinational companies based in the US, Europe, and Asia wanting to partner with us for the licensing of their patented technologies,” concluded Mr. Ryan.

RTG Ventures Announces Joint Venture With International Financial Systems Ltd

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - April 19, 2010) -  RTGV (OTCBB: RTGV): RTG Ventures has announced a joint venture (JV) with London-based International Financial Systems Limited (IFS) that will develop and roll out the iPayu mobile payments technology. The joint venture will officially launch on May 31^st and will combine the technical, banking and payments expertise of IFS with the sales, marketing and operations muscle of RTG Ventures.



IFS invented the iPayu platform and RTG Ventures had an existing agreement to license the technology to roll out and embed into its portfolio of products. This agreement sees both sides making a larger commitment to support continuing development of the intellectual property rights and enables the new joint venture to exploit opportunities faster.

Dominic Hawes-Fairley, President of RTG Ventures, said: "This is a really important development and will ensure that we can bring much more competitive and robust products to market. While we would have been able to operate just fine under the old licensing agreement, we were really keen to tie in the visionary technical and professional ability of the team at International Financial Systems and there's no better way of doing that than working on it as a joint project. This deal expands our capability and really adds weight to our ability to deliver.

"We have a clear road map for rolling out the technology and we've got a strategy that sees the JV earning revenues as fast as possible. We believe this technology has the power to change the way that many people exchange value and now that we're developing the solution in tandem with the inventors, we can ensure that our products are that much more compelling."

International Financial Systems was formed in 1979 and for more than two decades has specialized in providing software solutions, services and equipment to Wholesale Banks, Retail Banks, Internet Banks, Community Banks, Credit Unions and financial institutions of all types worldwide. With a customer list of over 100 banks ranging from the very largest to the very smallest, its modern banking software reflects the diversity of its customer base and is available in a range of configurations to suit the needs of customers of all sizes. IFS provide Core Banking, Internet banking, Mobile Phone Banking and Compliance solutions.

RTG Ventures is pleased to introduce the key executives at IFS who will be driving the iPayu JV.

Terry DayTerry has over 40 years of experience working exclusively in banking and banking applications software. Terry started his career as a computer programmer with Hill Samuel in 1967 and subsequently has worked both for banks and software houses providing solutions into this market place. Terry was heavily involved in the creation of the MBS package (sold by Arthur Andersen). Before forming International Financial Systems, Terry spent eight years working for a leading European bank where he was Head of International IT responsible for all branches outside of the home country.

Matthew DayMatthew has almost 20 years of knowledge and experience of selling and working in the financial sector having originally started his career as an FX trader in the City of London. Matthew has an in depth knowledge of the IFS product range with a particular emphasis on compliance. He also has as an unbridled enthusiasm for new customer delivery channels such as iPayu.

Hawes-Fairley concluded: "Joint ventures are a highly attractive way for RTG Ventures to address certain markets and technologies. They allow us to strike markets with maximum speed, with expert resource and with a predefined amount of capital investment. For months now, we've been talking about operating a lean and flexible model and this kind of agreement illustrates exactly how we're going to achieve that."

About RTG Ventures Inc.

RTG Ventures Inc., is an online media and electronic payment systems provider with an aggressive business model to grow unique and highly profitable consumer and business services both by organic growth of current assets and by acquisition. RTGV is targeting niche markets in the areas of Web-TV with embedded internet and mobile payment solutions. World-leading exclusive multicasting technology underpins RTGV's broadcast platforms making them very scalable for Video on Demand (VOD), linear broadcasting and live broadcasts. Two media platforms are being developed, while payment systems divisions will provide cutting-edge credit, debit, and e-cash payment services to e-commerce and mobile commerce merchants offering significant savings over current payment methods. Through embedding its payment solutions seamlessly into its online media broadcasting platforms will create a clear differentiation and advantage for our Company over other broadcast platforms, allowing its customer to monetize digital assets with no further integration of financial systems. Furthermore, through its retail sales channel, BMC, RTGV will be able to brand and productize its media offerings for sale through traditional retail outlets. RTGV's strategy for each initiative is to maximize ROI for all stakeholders. For RTGV's available Due Diligence, visit our website at:http://www.rtgventures.com/

RTG Ventures Announces Joint Venture With International Financial Systems Ltd

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - April 19, 2010) -  RTGV (OTCBB: RTGV): RTG Ventures has announced a joint venture (JV) with London-based International Financial Systems Limited (IFS) that will develop and roll out the iPayu mobile payments technology. The joint venture will officially launch on May 31^st and will combine the technical, banking and payments expertise of IFS with the sales, marketing and operations muscle of RTG Ventures.



IFS invented the iPayu platform and RTG Ventures had an existing agreement to license the technology to roll out and embed into its portfolio of products. This agreement sees both sides making a larger commitment to support continuing development of the intellectual property rights and enables the new joint venture to exploit opportunities faster.

Dominic Hawes-Fairley, President of RTG Ventures, said: "This is a really important development and will ensure that we can bring much more competitive and robust products to market. While we would have been able to operate just fine under the old licensing agreement, we were really keen to tie in the visionary technical and professional ability of the team at International Financial Systems and there's no better way of doing that than working on it as a joint project. This deal expands our capability and really adds weight to our ability to deliver.

"We have a clear road map for rolling out the technology and we've got a strategy that sees the JV earning revenues as fast as possible. We believe this technology has the power to change the way that many people exchange value and now that we're developing the solution in tandem with the inventors, we can ensure that our products are that much more compelling."

International Financial Systems was formed in 1979 and for more than two decades has specialized in providing software solutions, services and equipment to Wholesale Banks, Retail Banks, Internet Banks, Community Banks, Credit Unions and financial institutions of all types worldwide. With a customer list of over 100 banks ranging from the very largest to the very smallest, its modern banking software reflects the diversity of its customer base and is available in a range of configurations to suit the needs of customers of all sizes. IFS provide Core Banking, Internet banking, Mobile Phone Banking and Compliance solutions.

RTG Ventures is pleased to introduce the key executives at IFS who will be driving the iPayu JV.

Terry DayTerry has over 40 years of experience working exclusively in banking and banking applications software. Terry started his career as a computer programmer with Hill Samuel in 1967 and subsequently has worked both for banks and software houses providing solutions into this market place. Terry was heavily involved in the creation of the MBS package (sold by Arthur Andersen). Before forming International Financial Systems, Terry spent eight years working for a leading European bank where he was Head of International IT responsible for all branches outside of the home country.

Matthew DayMatthew has almost 20 years of knowledge and experience of selling and working in the financial sector having originally started his career as an FX trader in the City of London. Matthew has an in depth knowledge of the IFS product range with a particular emphasis on compliance. He also has as an unbridled enthusiasm for new customer delivery channels such as iPayu.

Hawes-Fairley concluded: "Joint ventures are a highly attractive way for RTG Ventures to address certain markets and technologies. They allow us to strike markets with maximum speed, with expert resource and with a predefined amount of capital investment. For months now, we've been talking about operating a lean and flexible model and this kind of agreement illustrates exactly how we're going to achieve that."

About RTG Ventures Inc.

RTG Ventures Inc., is an online media and electronic payment systems provider with an aggressive business model to grow unique and highly profitable consumer and business services both by organic growth of current assets and by acquisition. RTGV is targeting niche markets in the areas of Web-TV with embedded internet and mobile payment solutions. World-leading exclusive multicasting technology underpins RTGV's broadcast platforms making them very scalable for Video on Demand (VOD), linear broadcasting and live broadcasts. Two media platforms are being developed, while payment systems divisions will provide cutting-edge credit, debit, and e-cash payment services to e-commerce and mobile commerce merchants offering significant savings over current payment methods. Through embedding its payment solutions seamlessly into its online media broadcasting platforms will create a clear differentiation and advantage for our Company over other broadcast platforms, allowing its customer to monetize digital assets with no further integration of financial systems. Furthermore, through its retail sales channel, BMC, RTGV will be able to brand and productize its media offerings for sale through traditional retail outlets. RTGV's strategy for each initiative is to maximize ROI for all stakeholders. For RTGV's available Due Diligence, visit our website at:http://www.rtgventures.com/

Wow...Talk About Disruption in the Payments World

It's early here but I (still) got Georgia on my mind... This from Jeff Haynie's "Introspection" Blog...

There has been quite a bit of debate in the past few days about the 2008 GRA/TAG Business Launch Competition here in Atlanta. Scott Burkett was spot on in my opinion and was one of the first to publicaly call this insanity out. There were some tweets by some local entrepreneurs and Lance Weatherby attempted to quell the crowd with his peacemaking around trying to turn this into a positive and looking for suggestions about how to improve it.

A little background for those just trying to get up to speed on what’s happened.

The 2008 GRA/TAG Business Launch Competition is a cool annual event that is intended to help provide funding and value-added services in-kind to the lucky startup that is launching a business here in Georgia and looking for help. We had quite a number of companies apply, that was widdledwhittled down to a much smaller group and then to a final set of four companies. I’m an advisor to one company, Skyblox, which I think is worthy of the top 4 status and one of the cooler startups here in town. I’m biased and I freely admit that. But, that’s not really the point here.

Where this all breaks down is that the winner was a company called ATMDirect. I freely admit I know jack about these guys, except that the hidden secret that’s come out since the win is that they’re not really a startup per se. Maybe to the letter of the law, but certainly not the intention of it. You can technically say they’re just launching the business, but really they’re reinventing a company that has had literally millions and millions invested in it and its IP and taking some smart advantages of a bad bankruptcy situation. (And good for them).

Here’s the stated purpose of the event (from their press release):

The purpose of the GRA/TAG Business Launch Competition is to support economic development in Georgia by encouraging and supporting the creation and growth of new companies that will strengthen and expand Georgia’s strategic high tech clusters. To accomplish this, the competition has two specific goals:

• to motivate and support entrepreneurs in creating new high tech businesses in Georgia that will support and expand existing strategic clusters, and
• to create greater awareness within the investment community that Georgia is a great place to launch and grow high tech businesses.

(SIDE NOTE: I have issues with the purpose, especially the clusters concept, but that’s an opinion for another day).

OK, here’s the rules:

Entrepreneurs interested in launching a new Georgia company within targeted technologies and industries are invited to compete for a $100K cash prize and a suite of related professional services (including priority consideration for ATDC membership) that is valued at more than $200K. The competition offers entrants the opportunity to be mentored by a successful high tech entrepreneur.

Entrants must legally reside in the State of Georgia. All awards will be conditioned on the company launching and/or maintaining its operations in Georgia. If the winning company moves a majority of the business outside Georgia within 3 years, the winning company must repay TAG for the $100K cash prize plus 8% annual interest. TAG will make a final determination as to whether a company “moves a majority of the business outside of Georgia” and will have discretion to negotiate a variety of forms of repayment of the cash prize plus interest.

Entrants can be existing companies under certain circumstances. The competition is aimed at “new” businesses, however the time and effort required to launch a successful business in the targeted areas may require that an entrepreneur form a company and begin certain limited functions before any meaningful business operations occur. These functions could include prototype or Intellectual Property development and for these or similar reasons up to $500K in external funding may be allowed. Market trials may also be required and for this or a similar reason some limited revenue may be allowed. The judging process will take all these factors into consideration when making a recommendation to TAG’s President and the decision made by the TAG President is final.

OK, that’s where it gets a little fun. I think the rules are fair. And, it’s their money and their rules - Tino can do what he wants here.

An interesting comment on Lance’s post from John B. Frank:

ATMDirect was neither founded, NOR funded by Nandon Seth. It was founded nearly a decade ago by an individual named Robert Ziegler who raised a couple million dollars. Pay By Touch paid $30.5 Million Dollars for it and sank another couple million into it before their unfortunate demise. Nandon Seth "simply acquired" ATMDirect for $600k during the Pay By Touch bankruptcy. Thus to state that he “founded” and “funded” ATMDirect is simply a misnomer. Just thought I’d set the record straight. FYI: You can visit www.biometricpayments.blogspot.com or www.pindebit.blogspot.com and do an ATMDirect search to learn more about ATMDirect’s history as well as PIN Debit for the Web…

Even on the ATMDirect website it states: ATM Direct was purchased by Accullink, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia in March 2008. See our press release for more details. (Side note: i can’t find the press release they mention specifically from their website which is terrible).

This is from the about page: ATM Direct is a privately held alternative payments provider offering a suite of products that enable PIN debit payments over the Internet. The technology underlying our products are backed by a suite of intellectual property that includes 10 patent families. Our technology leverages a revolutionary encryption and authentication framework which is easy to implement and integrates seamlessly with existing payment processing protocols and systems.

OK, a “business launch” for a “new startup” doesn’t have 10 patent families. Ten fully prosecuted patents families would be worth at least a million or more dollars alone most likely.

Also, they seem to have violated clearly the investment criteria of less than $500K (at a minimum, not including their post purchase investment if any).

Comment from Malcolm
Time: June 9, 2008, 4:17 pm

I think the question here is a bit less of how “old” or “young” the company is. I think the other competitors wouldn’t complain about a stretch on $100K investment. The real question is, what motivated the judges to choose ATM Direct? “A good team that presents well”. By all other accounts in the transaction industry, their patents have been misrepresented and their solution doesn’t hold water.

I guess I’ll sell my failing cat waxing business to Arthur Blank and he can win next year.

Comment from Paul Freet
Time: June 9, 2008, 4:35 pm

First, I have no issue with the management team at ATM Direct and I sincerely wish them great success.

While I agree that “technically” they qualified as a new company, and the $600k was “technically” not an outside investment, I have also talked to a number of people in the Atlanta startup scene who are “technically” quite torqued off about this.

Comment from David Jones
Time: June 9, 2008, 7:52 pm

In all fairness TAG, ATDC and the GRA all have their own agendas and any entrepreneur in Atlanta that doesn’t understand that is doing themselves a disservice. These organizations are definitely not “one size fits all”. If your company is not a “fit” – and it’s likely you’re not - you have to learn what (if anything) you can glean from them and then go it on your own.

I think the biggest problem we as entrepreneurs can make is looking at TAG and ATDC as the center of the startup universe in Atlanta. They are significant and they do benefit some companies, but regardless of what many think, they are not the arbiter of success and their judgment on the viability of your venture should not always be taken to heart (except maybe for the cat wax dude…).

There is a vibrant startup community in Atlanta (and the surrounding area) and it’s just starting to get up on it’s wobbly legs. We’re busy people – this stuff isn’t easy you know – but we’re getting help with organizing and connecting, through the efforts of Scott (Startup Lounge, Capital Lounge, Pitchcamp), Sanjay Parekh (Startup Riot, Startup Drinks), David Ratajczak (YnR), Mike Schinkel (Atlanta Web Entrepreneurs), and a lot of others.

Regarding the Business Launch: Get real – yes, this is a promotional opportunity for the company that wins (for about a month or so), but it’s a bigger chest thumping exercise for the sponsors than anyone else. Is this really where you should devote your precious startup’s time? (I was told by one of the organizers that the semifinalists this year were sooooo much better that last year’s – I’m hoping they just forgot that I was a semifinalist last year… How much mileage did we get off of it? Not much. YMMV.)

Look, I’ve got nothing against ATM Direct – don’t know the guys, don’t understand what they do (they do seem to get good deals on blade servers…), but their backstory doesn’t paint a very pretty picture. The fact that their technology development is based in Dallas, TX and Bangalore as opposed to Atlanta seems to be squeaking by the rules a bit and I’m not sure how that plays into ATDC & TAG’s mission statements. Now I don’t know the founder’s financial situation (I assume after selling your company to American Express you’re probably not living off of ramen noodles any more), but nothing in the rules says you have to “need” the money to enter the competition. It’s a dog eat dog world guys and it’s rarely fair – suck it up and let’s beat them off the court.

Comment from Jeff Haynie
Time: June 9, 2008, 8:01 pm

I had the *same reaction* today when I heard of this company. Wow, i thought. Skyblox is a kick-ass startup pinching pennies and doing some really useful and valuable stuff. Of course, i’m helping skyblox so i’m biased big time.

Too bad, lots of other great companies out there in the competition that could have really used the money.

Comment from Sanjay Parekh
Time: June 9, 2008, 8:17 pm

Okay, so even though I’m currently on vacation I’ll chime in on this although I don’t have the bandwidth to do a blog post. I think the big issue here isn’t the $100k overage, but the fact that the technology has had WAY more than $500k spent on it in its various iterations - at least I assume so. Otherwise it would have never (I’d think) been bought once for $30m (regardless of if it was out of bankruptcy or not). Given that, even though it was later bought for $600k, the technology had much more *lifetime investment* in it than the $500k cap. That creates an uneven playing field for other companies that do adhere to this spending cap.

Beyond this, the company (or at least the technology) has been around for a long time in various forms. Not a startup by any stretch of any rules.

Finally, the management of the company already had a successful exit and have a large war chest to spend already. So is this money better invested in ATM Direct or elsewhere? I’d say elsewhere but then, I’m not GRA or TAG.

Comment from Sanjay Parekh
Time: June 9, 2008, 9:22 pm

Also, after reading David Jones’ comments above - I have to concur. It’s silly and we all know it’s silly. Go about your business and “win” a liquidity event since winning a launch competition isn’t (or shouldn’t be) your goal.

Comment from TerrenceT
Time: June 9, 2008, 9:27 pm

So since Delta Airlines stock has plummeted in value could I buy them for $600K and relaunch it as a new airline and win next years startup award?

Editor's Note: According to the logic used in the example above, if Microsoft would have bought Yahoo, Bill Gates would've been the "founder" of Yahoo! and Terrence T. has the potential to be the founder of Delta Airlines! On a side note, Did anyone else besides me notice that the CEO of Harbor Payments is on the Board of Directs of TAG? Why is that pertinent? Because the "founder" (sic) of ATMDirect is also the "founder" of Harbor Payments.