Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
From the PR "Market praise"
" It also develops, markets, and supports ANTs Data Server. "
It's not the first time I noticed it, but does anyone have any insight. We sold this product to Four Js. Now, it doesn't say owns. And this was the product that Rik was selling.??????
Spirit, that article you're replying about is several years old, and beyond that I doubt Ants has anything to do with Sparta. But the concept is similar - simplify, boost performance, and save money. From the old article:
" Many of the customers on Wall Street have DB2 licenses allowing for unlimited deployment. So the ROI is simple; Make the migration easy, ANTs makes it mindless;"
With "unlimited deployment" you should save alot of money moving to DB2, but that's not the only issue. From the article "Ants Compatibility Server" on the web site:
"Database proliferation is understandable, but it is no joke. The more databases an enterprise supports, the more variants of test and development, quality assurance, patching, and end-user training must be maintained."
And from the same article. Another reason for the ACS.
"Migrating the data in a database is merely hard. Recreating all the procedures of the old database on the new is much more difficult. Few businesses can afford to incur a hiatus of database functionality, so they need an intermediate step."
Some other things to keep in mind. These Sybase customers may not be as easy to entice this time around. They now have SAP wanting their business and SAP has more resources than Sybase ever did. Even without the software issues SAP might have been part of the problem under Kozak. But, it is my understanding that the new architecture does not have to be re-written (time and money) when a new version is desired e.g. Oracle to IBM, Microsoft to Oracle, etc. Stay tuned. This story is going to get very interesting.
I've seen more than one complaint about the previous failure of Ants being related to them not selling the product. This is from my previous posts Sybase link.
"What is different about ANTs technology on DB2 is that IBM has spent the better part of 18 months integrating this into their DB2 technology so that rather than sitting on the outside of the engine this stuff is integrated into the engine. The reason is simple PERFORMANCE. Because of this IBM is reselling the software. It is an IBM product with IBM support"
And I'll repeat again. How could IBM go to such lengths with this stuff and then have the software issues arise. Frustration venting..
There's no love lost between Ants and Sybase. Your post got me looking and I stumbled on these blasts from the past.
http://blogs.sybase.com/database/2010/07/elephants-and-ants-a-corporate-fable/
This Syase evangelist came out swinging after the IBM/Ants product announcement. The feelings run high on both sides, but make sure and read comment #2 by Warren Lucas. His qualifications are at the top of his post.
Excerpt:
"My point in mentioning the DB2 Oracle compatability on this Sybase blog is that as you start seeing the numbers coming out on the ANTs integrated DB2 SKIN software don’t be surprised if they blow you away. And then of course there are some new things in the wings."
My point in posting this is to show what knowledgable people in the industry felt was the potential of this product. Now improved I believe.
Here is an article that mentions some of the big names Ants was dealing with. Maybe we can get them interested again.
http://www.informationweek.com/software/information-management/ibm-to-migrate-sybase-customers-to-db2/225200014
Excerpt:
"Citigroup, with many instances of Sybase running among its business units, evaluated ANTs and found that it liked the stability and performance of the software in its labs, Kozak said. He recalls being called into a meeting two years ago with the Citigroup CIO, who told him he had a very strong product but his firm would not buy it from a firm with revenue of only $5.8 million in 2009. It would buy it, however, if it were offered through IBM, he
was told"
Now there was clearly a lot of animosity between Sybase(now SAP) and Ants. You act like you think just the lawsuit will prohibit any business dealings between us and SAP. I don't believe you believe that. But assuming you did, think of it like this. It must take a very special product to get SAP/Sybase to talk with us
Just wait till the 10K comes out For anyone interested in that lawsuit, here is a link.
http://www.tradesecretsnoncompetelaw.com/uploads/file/sybase%20pdf.PDF
It's an old lawsuit.
"On July 10, 2008, Sybase, Inc. (“Sybase”), an enterprise software and services company, filed a complaint against the Company for common law unfair business practices, and tortious interference with contractual relations, among other things, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Sybase was seeking an injunction and damages among other legal and equitable relief. Sybase has been changing its damages and remedies claims and is now seeking rescission of its license of certain ANTs software source code and damages in connection therewith. A trial date, initially set for August 2010, was continued to April 2011, and is now being continued again, likely to October 2011. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to continue vigorously defending itself while seeking a settlement beneficial to the Company."
And if Ants goes after them, good. That may get some money back. This in no way precludes Ants and SAP from doing business in the future. Companies are just like people. Complicated. Now if the animosity got too great...sure, one of them might back away, but when there's money to be made. Get real.
This is an appeal. It's an old lawsuit. Go read about it. Surely you did so before you posted this information?
Oh c'mon Lio, you can do better than this. The lawsuit is not about the ACS. Do you really think if SAP can make money off of Ants technology they wouldn't do so because of an old lawsuit? Think hard. I still want some cheap shares.
The 19 & 2.6 million are in my opinion both wrong. The 19 is probably due to no updates after the company was delisted, the 2.6 is probably using the o/s figure last officially reported. The 300 million share count comes from Doc and that last Ironridge filing that states, well I can't quite remember, but it's something to the effect of, for the purposes of this filing the share count was assumed to be 300 million. In this case you can't rely on sites that grab numbers and crunch. You have to unearth the information yourself.
Even though many of us can see the potential here it's clear the general market does not. And with good reason. Investors like to examine numbers. We have none that are up to date, along with no current revenues of which i'm aware. The recent press about SAP and IBM(names everyone knows) among other things gave the stock price a boost, but this was largely traders, not exclusively though. Real investors would take the next press release at least as seriously if not more so. The one about Rik. Comparing the price/volume action of the two shows that this is still someting of a game. Granted, we were under a penny when the first one came out, but Rik's barely moved the needle. When deals are clearer, the products ready, filings up to date, do you really think this company will be able to be bought for 5-6 million???? Place your bets
Price volatility.....yawn.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............
D, the other wild card is Ironridge. In that filing it gives a formula for calculating the "final amount". My rough calculations are below.
"On October 13, 2011, ANTs software inc. (“ANTs” or the “Company”) issued seventeen million, six hundred and four thousand and fifty two (17,604,052) shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (“Common Stock”) to Ironridge Global Technology, a division of Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. (“Ironridge”) in reliance on the private placement exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, provided by Section 3(a)(10) thereof.
The shares issued to Ironridge were issued pursuant to a Stipulation for Settlement of Claims (the “Stipulation”) filed by the Company and Ironridge in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC469712) on October 12, 2011 in settlement of claims purchased by Ironridge from certain creditors of the Company in the aggregate amount equal to $741,836.12 (the “Claim Amount”), plus interest, attorneys fees and costs. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the Company was required to issue and deliver 17,604,052 shares of Common Stock (the “Initial Issuance”), including 1,604,052 shares of Common Stock held by Ironridge that were delivered on July 20, 2011 and previously reported on the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed on August 2, 2011. Ironridge will ultimately be entitled to retain a number of shares of Common Stock (the “Final Amount”) that is equal to (a) 1,500,000 shares of Common Stock, plus (b) that number of shares of Common Stock with an aggregate value equal to (i) the sum of the Claim Amount plus a transaction fee of $37,092 and reasonable attorneys fees, (ii) divided by seventy percent (70%) of the volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) as reported by Bloomberg over a period of time beginning on the date on which Ironridge receives the Initial Issuance and ending on the date on which the aggregate trading volume of the Company’s common stock exceeds $3,100,000.00 (such period being the “Calculation Period”). For every million shares that trade during the Calculation Period, or if any time during the Calculation Period a daily VWAP is below 80% of the closing price of the Company’s Common Stock on the day before the date of the Initial Issuance, Ironridge has the right to cause the Company to immediately issue to Ironridge additional shares of Common Stock (each, an “Additional Issuance”) (provided, however, that at no time may Ironridge and its affiliates collectively own more than 4.99% of the total number of shares of Common Stock outstanding). At the end of the Calculation Period, (a) if the sum of the Initial Issuance and any Additional Issuance is less than the Final Amount, the Company shall immediately issue additional shares to Ironridge so that the total issuance is equal to the Final Amount and (b) if the sum of the Initial Issuance and any Additional Issuance is greater than the Final Amount, Ironridge will return any remaining shares to the Company for cancellation."
Using numbers loosely, let's say the claim amount, transaction fee, and reasonable attorney fees was 800,000 dollars. Let's set the 70% of VWAP at 2 cents. If i remember right this was close. It was never publically disclosed, and I didn't try to keep close tabs on it. That gives the final amount of 40 million plus 1.5 million. Now the key is 4.99% at any one time. So Ironridge starts selling the shares during that window being careful, because they don't know if a buyout or other news could come along(it didn't and you can bet these guys did their homework) and catch them by surprise(drastically altering the VWAP). It was even possible, by selling all they were initially given and asking for more, to increase the 4.99 % number(OS goes up). After all, if the VWAP stays at 2 cents, they're allowed to sell 41.5 million or sell part and hold no more than 4.99%. So it's almost assured that these transactions of Ironridge added to the float. How much is any bodies guess. We know they added to the OS.
I should add that the revenues from that period, to the best of my memory, never showed a significant increase.
An interesting(unusual) post from Ragingbull. Now ANYBODY can post ANYTHING on the Internet, but this has a ring of truth. And this also backs up some of the things we're seeing in his résumé. It's one sided and without the software bugs Joe would probably look like a genius, but he definitely has a point about at least keeping the ADS until the ACS got to the starting gate.
"Surf or as I shall refer to you from now on “Uninformed #######,†I know the facts about Sanchez, as I worked directly for him in the Telco group. Truth is our group closed more deals than were ever reported to shareholders, for example, Sprint Wireless, Single Point (WSC), Agilasys, Livepoint, Timedata, Widerthan, and list goes on and on.
At then end, we also had three signed customer contracts that were presented to JOE for signature. Instead of signing these good contracts representing MILLIONS of dollars in revenue, Joe wrote letters to all three signed customers canceling the agreements and advising them that ANTS was no longer going to sell or support the ADS product. One of these signed agreements, was scheduled to be used as the primary DB for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange trading platform.
Then he laid us all off and stopped selling ADS, for the life of us, we have never been able to understand why he pulled the plug on a profitable product at least one year, probably longer, before the new product was ready for release.
Surf (Uninformed #######), before you write more BS in here, do some research and point your finger at the real villain JOE. Better yet, why don’t you go find a hobby like surfing porn and leave Ants alone so we can make some money back on our investment? Pit Bull Bites "
D, after refreshing my memory to the situation, I don't believe it 's possible to completely reconcile the share count. In a 10 K/A filing dated 5/2/11 the stock outstanding was listed as 135,500,000, and that number appeared to me to be fully diluted. Later on(3/30/12) in a 13G/A filing of Zdarsky's the count is listed as 156,480,848. I don't know how it got to the 300 million today, but it might have something to do with the Manchester, Sam LLC, and JGB stuff. Looking over that filing again for myself I'm quite sure those exchange notes due at the beginning of this year could be converted into stock. Now it appeared they were banking on a sale in that filing, but it's clear that didn't happen. And even though four months later Zdarsky's filing shows 156 million shares, about a month later(4/27/12) Ironridge's 13G shows they assumed 300 million. We just won't really know until the late filings come out. Ultimately this doesn't matter now, as I think we may be on a fast track to success, but it just galls me that the share count ballooned like that.
P.S. - There was talk over on Ragingbull at the time about a group getting together to try and buy the notes, but I don't know if anything ever came of it.
About questions. I would really like to know the status of the advanced architecture ACS product.
I believe the primary focus will be the ACS. Look at the CEO corner. In the September 17th blog the ACS was mentioned(and the primary focus) in 3 out of the 5 that concerned revenue possibilities. And we've all seen this quote from one of those:)
"ANTs contact by this firm was at the request of several of their FORTUNE 500 clients regarding the ACS."
And in case I didn't communicate it well or you're unfamiliar with the companies history, Ants, to my knowledge, never tried to do that. First they tried consolidation with Oracle, and later ended up with IBM.
Yes, that was definitely a large part of their decision to sell the ADS and focus on the ACS.
Yes, for example say a company has 9 different databases, you would save more money by eliminating a,b,c,d, of a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i, and now have five g's or 2 g's and 4 i's or whatever along with what's left over than replacing i with j. But sometimes a product can offer something special where consolidation wouldn't be the primary consideration.
From my point of view the execution problems could possibly have been in the designing of the software. Maybe if more care had been taken the last minute problems wouldn't have arisen. That's total speculation on my part though. From what I can tell Joe did fine until the last when the software issues started, and apparently there was some finger pointing between Ants & IBM. And with no revenue, the fund raising which was never expected to have to last as long as it did spiraled out of control. But IMHO Joe did exactly the right thing partnering us up with a big brother(IBM), as we needed to get the customers confidence.
Thinking out loud here. You know it's just possible, since this new guy knows a bit about the Genero db(ADS), that Ants and Four Js may push a package comprised of the ADS & ACS. Since the ADS has some of the technology that is in the ACS they might be a good fit. Which begs the question, why didn't it happen before? Maybe not likely, but something to think about.
Interesting. Don't remember him, but he left a little after the changeover from the ADS(Ants Data Server - a database) to the ACS occurred. The reason the ADS never really took off even though it may have been the fastest out there is in part the very reason the ACS exists. Changing data bases is expensive and time consuming(although they apparently lessened that burden - see below). Also, Ants was a small company, and that made it difficult to get customers to commit. That experience may very well have played a part in getting the focus on the ACS. To the best of my knowledge 4Js still owns the ADS.
http://www.4js.com/en/news/headline/2008/ants-software-and-four-js-sign-asset-purchase-agreement-for-ants-data-server
"As part of the multi-million dollar agreement, employees working on the ADS will join Four Js and current ADS customers will receive support from Four Js. Under the terms of the purchase, ANTs retains fifty percent of license and maintenance revenue from its reseller agreement with IBM® to supply the US Navy DDG1000 Destroyer program for a period of four years. ANTs will also retain unrestricted license rights to key ADS technologies that are utilized in the ANTs Compatibility Server. "
Thanks. Overworked is probably an understatement. I'm betting the ACS is still not completed. Designed and tested yes, but not quite ready to implement. That could change at any time. I believe he was thinking about using some programming labor from students at a local university.
T, when you say he recently tested the re-written software, approximately how long ago are you talking about? Is the new ACS completed and ready to go? I need to ask him these things, but don't like to bug him if I don't have to.
"Especially after that blog that urged investors to buy while he was quietly selling some of his stake. "
Really??? Not that there's anything wrong with needing money, but the evidence is out there and the burden of proof's on you. I believe you're deliberately lying. Remember we're talking about a timing issue here. You just accused him of pumping and dumping.
"I think more shares had to be issued to satisfy earlier convertible preferred holders. As new holders were getting better deals the older holders had make good provisions that dramatically increased their holdings."
You think??? Please. This doesn't deserve any comment.
Here's an excerpt from the Ironridge October filing. It took me a while to fully grasp this one. Both this and the previous filing should be an addition to the 159 million figure from Constantine's 13 G, which according to Ironridge's last 13G worked out to about 15 million, their percentage cap. The rest of the deal in the 13G was canceled by Doc to the best of my knowledge.
"Ironridge will ultimately be entitled to retain a number of shares of Common Stock (the “Final Amount”) that is equal to (a) 1,500,000 shares of Common Stock, plus (b) that number of shares of Common Stock with an aggregate value equal to (i) the sum of the Claim Amount plus a transaction fee of $37,092 and reasonable attorneys fees, (ii) divided by seventy percent (70%) of the volume weighted average price (“VWAP”) as reported by Bloomberg over a period of time beginning on the date on which Ironridge receives the Initial Issuance and ending on the date on which the aggregate trading volume of the Company’s common stock exceeds $3,100,000.00 (such period being the “Calculation Period”). For every million shares that trade during the Calculation Period, or if any time during the Calculation Period a daily VWAP is below 80% of the closing price of the Company’s Common Stock on the day before the date of the Initial Issuance, Ironridge has the right to cause the Company to immediately issue to Ironridge additional shares of Common Stock (each, an “Additional Issuance”) (provided, however, that at no time may Ironridge and its affiliates collectively own more than 4.99% of the total number of shares of Common Stock outstanding). At the end of the Calculation Period, (a) if the sum of the Initial Issuance and any Additional Issuance is less than the Final Amount, the Company shall immediately issue additional shares to Ironridge so that the total issuance is equal to the Final Amount and (b) if the sum of the Initial Issuance and any Additional Issuance is greater than the Final Amount, Ironridge will return any remaining shares to the Company for cancellation."
I'm not a paying member so this is where I have to reply. Most of this should be of interest to investors anyway. This is a file from November where out of control warrants were exchanged for debt instruments. The problem is they were due at the beginning of the year, and they were defaulted on. Basically because a sale of the company didn't go through. There was no filing after that, but a group of shareholders expressed interest in buying them. I'm not sure what happened. Look over the filing, because I initially thought this new debt could be converted into shares, but someone who should have known told me that was not the case, so I'm kind of working off the assumption that this particular problem didn't add to the dilution.
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001157523%2D11%2D006707%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C11%5C10%5C&CoName=ANTS+SOFTWARE+INC&FormType=8%2DK&RcvdDate=11%2F10%2F2011&pdf=
More to come
Honestly no, but I'm not an accountant or anything close. More the creative type. Your qualifications are much more suited to the job(Mission Impossible music begins
Let me get this straight. Joe's trying desperately to keep the company afloat, keep Constantine happy, and he risks running afoul of the SEC??? Riiiight. And the evidence(filings) up to that point didn't indicate 300 million.
Now something was going on as the next thing we knew the share count had jumped from 156 million to 300 million. That was after the Ironridge stuff among other things, but I honestly am clueless about where all those shares went.
Thanks DG. I emailed Frank after the "initial pass" was stated on the web site. The software at that point still had to be written/coded/built, whatever;), and he gave me an approximate dollar figure, which didn't strike me as expensive. My bet is it's still not ready for prime time. I'm patient:) Been an Ants investor for too long.
When I tell acquaintances about Ants that's the simple explanation I use - a translator.
Do you have any opinions on companies moving towards open source data bases?
And you are correct, there is a lot of potential here.
Hi T, your friend(or research) is giving you the correct information. I can't even remember which ones were defaulted on. If I remember right one was sold to Ironridge who took their compensation in shares with a formula which sure made the further decline in price very, very suspicious. They're one of the parties I'm interested in examining in the future 10K. I really believe most previous insiders will hold. Unless Ants was fooling a whole lot of professional people(IBM inclusive), they know the potential here.
No, that's not correct. They were taking what they could get to keep the operation afloat until they could turn it around or sell it. But I like your sense of humor;)
For the sake of clarity, does that "yes" mean Constantine is responsible for Frank?
Looking at later filings it appears you can add 6.8 million to the figure in the 13G. Bear in mind his last reported cash infusion in Oct. 2011 was done at 10 cents, with warrants at 12 cents.
Those are all from the "old regime". I believe most of them are probably holding. The one we can be pretty sure about is Constantine, beause he's a 10% owner and any move in his stock must be reported. Earlier, when I thought 20% was about right I was wrong. Here is his 13G/A filing :
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125%2D12%2D143448%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2012%5C03%5C30%5C&CoName=ANTS+SOFTWARE+INC&FormType=SC+13G%2FA&RcvdDate=3%2F30%2F2012&pdf=
Even though it says 21.3%, the date of the event which requires this filing is August 3 2011, and if it's using that date for the #'s, the share count wasn't yet 300 million. At any rate the share count reported in that filing is 39,286,099.
I still can't reconcile how those 300 million are distributed.
DG, how familiar are you with software? What do you think he means by" initial pass" . Apparently it was put together well enough to run some tests. Can you patch things in and then more fully integrate them later? I'm completely ignorant here.
Interesting. Do you know this for a fact? He's probably the largest shareholder, and the 20% figure strikes me as about right, maybe a little low including all his options, warrants, etc. The money raising(and management of) got so crazy at the end, it was hard(impossible)to keep up. I remember in one of the later filings it said he was granted access to the company and the books anytime he wanted within reason.
We definitely don't want a buy out at this point. Maybe after the ACS software is written and there are many different customers successfully using the product AND paying for it. At the beginning of the year I would have been glad for a buy out, but that was a Hail Mary that thank heavens never came to pass. By the way, has anyone asked about the status of the new ACS coding? Is it near completion? The thing about this product is not only do customers(say Sears) save money by consolidating data bases without the costly and time consuming rewrites, but the data base company they choose to go to makes lots of money selling other software and hardware. I also noticed early on that Doc appeared to be talking to open source data base people which strikes me as a smart move.
I'm not in such bad shape. Massive buying even before Frank came on board really helped. Some as low as a quarter of a cent. Always tried to buy low...but...it wasn't that long ago that 40 cent Ants shares looked like a bargain. They may again...they just may. P.S. - The email appeared not to work.