Pelle Karlsson and EvelynT. Karlsson - Page 14

                                               - 14 -                                                 

            agreed to pay for the technology, and Bursell had no experience                           
            in the licensing of technology.  Bursell never considered the                             
            fact that Cromwell could have obtained a license for the                                  
            technology for a significantly reduced price and that Cromwell                            
            could have acquired the technology for only a running royalty.                            
                  Bursell made no economic analysis, and he did not opine as                          
            to whether Cromwell could have made a profit.  He merely                                  
            testified vaguely that technology in general could be costly.  He                         
            gave no opinion as to whether Cromwell's license had value or                             
            whether the price agreed to by Cromwell for the technology was                            
            reasonable.                                                                               
                  Jerry D. Ham, another of petitioners’ experts, did not                              
            testify that Cromwell agreed to pay a fair market value price for                         
            the license of the EOR technology.  Ham was unclear as to what                            
            technology, in 1979, was included in the portfolio, and he could                          
            not explain why Cromwell purchased the technology from Elektra or                         
            what Elektra was obligated to provide in return for the license                           
            fee.  Also, Ham was not aware of what Elektra had agreed to pay                           
            for the technology it licensed to Cromwell.  Ham's opinion as to                          
            the reasonableness of the license fee has no credibility.1                                
                  As respondent’s expert explained in his testimony, the                              
            license fees for which Cromwell became obligated with respect to                          

            1     Interestingly, Ham’s ultimate conclusion seems to be that,                          
            as a working interest owner who had hired an operator, there was                          
            really no need for Cromwell to license technology at all.                                 




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011