Was a looss of revenue the result of former franchise owners joining NACHI, or simply deciding that they no longer wanted to pay. Were there other reasons, such as a drop in business and no longer being able to afford the franchise or royalty fee or whatever fee structure they had agreed to?
Was the loss of revenue actual revenue, or was it projected revenue from a revenue stream that may have dried up based upon a number of factors, including an inspector’s own rsearch on the matter, including what he/she learn from the likes of Snell, etc.
Do those who provide education in the art of using the cameras inform their students of their obligation to comply with the patent?
Also, going from 40 franchise owners in 2008 to only 10 in 2014 likely has nothing to do directly with Bill Loder.