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.
If I wanted to sell today, I would have done so earlier. I didn't want to sell then. I don't want to sell now. Monday should be very interesting!
Not at all, I bought earlier today at $.185. Could sell now at a profit, but won't.
Good summary.
Everyone knows that flippers don't want to be in for a weekend. They'll be back Monday morning.
Then it is not about the PRs.
Welcome back!
If BCST were referring to MCCY PRs from June, why did they post their deal with MCCY on their own website?
You have yet to show that the injunction refers to those PRs.
If you refer to it as "your car" or "our car", you'll never hear the end of it from certain folks here.;o] LOL
The dead horse is the repetitive posts of incorrect inferences from MCCY PR's regarding BCST. What MCCY said was truthful. I agree with the poster who earlier described this as a tempest in a teapot.
MCCY owned the right to market the SDS technology. If anyone inferred incorrectly otherwise, MCCY clarified it in their 6/21 PR.
Just provide us with one shred of evidence.
Where in the judge's opinion does he reference these?
Having a worldwide license would constitute "rights". Even the BCST website acknowledge MCCY's rights!
WHAT IF Toyota, GM, etc license FOLO?
MCCY's PR of 6/21 makes it crystal clear that SDS was licensed from BCST. BCST's website confirmed that. Now BCST claims there is no agreement. THAT is odd!
Why would he have to "resignate"?
I made that very clear in my post.
It becomes more clear with the bolded text I added and 3 days later clarified by MCCY PR.
RH made it crystal clear in his PR of 6/21.
Asked and answered several times by jigfish and I.
Asked and answered, several times.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23063474
Weren't these PRs from Devonshire?
Well said Tory!
The big selloff yesterday came from the BCST PR. If this issue is cleared up Monday, then this big cloud will be lifted.
One benefit of all of this is that these legal ranglings show us that there are serious $$$ involved and that the inventor of SDS wants to be aligned with MCCY and he knows much more about what is going here than any of us.
jigfish - you are absolutely correct.
The technology is proprietary and MCCY has it (or at least did at that time). Again the difference is between inference and implication.
Obviously, SDS is not "the important part of FOLO" as before the deal for SDS Our install base is growing and we expect to be able to update shareholders very soon about developments at the corporate level.
The 6/18 PR was accurate. What you have inferred is not implied. It becomes more clear with the bolded text I added and 3 days later clarified by MCCY PR.
"We have by way of a license a proprietary technology which we are marketing to the trucking industry throughout North America and Europe. This technology, called System of Detection of Somnolence (SDS), helps detect the waking state of truck drivers. SDS detects driver alertness on a remote basis thru monitoring saving lives and money."
SDS is only the sleep detection subsystem. FOLO does much more. I doubt that it would be difficult for MCCY to integrate a different sleep detection subsystem into their system. Besides, it looks like Bruno may have come up with something better.
I would say that #2 is incorrect. The temporary injunction realtes only to SDS, not FOLO.
It appears to me that BCST is making no claims on FOLO, only SDS.
I wish JoeNatural could comment now.
Allowing cancellation with cause. Why would MCCY sign a contract with BCST if BCST could cancel on a whim? Would you do that?
Very possible.
In other words, maybe this Bruno character has filed a patent for a superior product with MCCY that goes around an existing patent he helped create with Bio. I have seen it happen before.
Further evidence from those truly in the know that big things are happening for MCCY.
It appears that way. The most important thing is to get the claims allowed. The patent is denoument. (sp?)
I doubt that MCCY's agreement with BCST could be so easily revoked. Most contracts have longer lifetimes than that.
I agree that no patents have yet been issued, but if you look at the responses from WIPO, my opinion is that a PCT patent will definitely be issued with the independent claim granted without change.
Note that Bruno is applicant and inventor in the PCT application for the US.
The PCT patent application appears to be moving along very nicely!