In a court, judge appointed assessor would not use VC method but would instead instead use NPV method to value a company. As you know very well, there's a lot of risk and uncertainty associated with startups and it would not be prudent, for a judge, to value something based on the VC method since court decisions work the opposite: on minimization of uncertainty. Clearly, the poster is looking for a valuation that would arise if his case ended up in the court.
You and PG are basically saying the same thing: NPV is the expected value of all future profits, discounted back to the present by the risk-free rate of return (normally taken to be the interest rate on T-bills). You're assuming that profits will remain constant, though. In most cases, this is not a valid assumption. Even big companies like Coca Cola have some earnings growth factored into their stock prices.
There is, of course, risk in trying to predict future profits. But there's also risk in assuming profits will remain constant (as I rudely found out when I invested in a stock with a P/E of 9, only to see it lose money the next quarter). That's why financial analysts get paid big bucks.
The only company that's worth zero is a bankrupt one. Sometimes not even then - many bankrupt companies still have a residual market cap because investors expect them to emerge from bankrupty and continue operating.
It's harder to estimate the future profits of a company that isn't profitable yet, but that doesn't mean the company is worth nothing. In fact, there is a whole industry based on buying the stock of newly founded, unprofitable companies. It's called venture capital. Its leading practitioners are all extremely rich, which they would not be if their work consisted of buying stuff that was worth zero.