I remember when Allen testified he said that DG was in fact paid for his services that he did. Then in DG's father's testimony he claims that AL did not pay DG. But for all we know DG could have just told his father that he didn't get paid and we all know he has a good record of being a liar. MOO
The way I understood that testimony was that Allen was trying to establish that DG was a paid contractor, as opposed to working without compensation in return for potential future remuneration when/if the pump and patent succeeded. (Not sure if being paid for work would preclude DG from being also listed as a contributor on the patent though?). Then when DG's father reported DG saying he hadn't been paid, it may not have meant 'ever', or 'anything', but could have just been one time, one invoice, part of one bill, whatever.