- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011