- 425 -
this Court previously noted: (1) In view of the broad definition
of the term "Patent Rights", as defined in the March 28, 1978,
agreement between Newport and Sloan-Kettering, it is difficult to
see that IRC acquired ownership of anything that could be
commercially exploited in a trade or business; (2) the existence
of the IRC Shareholders-Newport Put/Call Agreement made it
extremely unlikely IRC would ever exploit the research Newport
conducted in a trade or business because (a) if the research were
sufficiently successful to require the payment of royalties, then
Newport likely would exercise its call option and, (b) if the
research were not sufficiently successful to require the payment
of royalties, then IRC's shareholders would be motivated to put
their IRC shares to Newport in return for Newport common stock;
(3) after its initial capital was expended, IRC had no further
capital to conduct or finance further research, and the existence
of the put and call agreements gave IRC's shareholders no
incentive to contribute additional capital to IRC; and (4) some
of IRC's shareholders apparently had always wanted to acquire
Newport stock and such investment was structured as a research
and development activity in the hope of allowing the investors a
deduction for their investment.
Although Kanter testified in the instant cases, we find his
testimony unconvincing and view it as more in the nature of
advocacy than the presentation of substantive evidence. It does
Page: Previous 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011