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.
What OU contract?
But he is going forward with funding for version 2.0
Sluss was long listed as the PI on the project. Refai was his student.
OCAST did NOT take away the money for the reason stated. TDCP needed to name a substitute PI as in specified in the solicitation rules. They did not do so in the required time. Read the solicitation for the options.
Refai's company was started BEFORE he left TDCP as CTO. It registered with OK SOS in 2013. He lists his affiliation with the company for a period in which it was not a registered OK company.
Apparently it is being listed in some places as owned by his wife (significant advantage for gov grants to be woman owned) and she is the PI of the funded grant not Refai. Their company with Refai as PI filed for OCAST grant while he was CTO at TDCP; it was not funded.
"...writing on wall..." is not necessarily the best description of what was going on.
There is something very strange happening but I doubt any of the ordinary investors will ever get the whole story. That being the case, there is still hope that something will pull it out.
Crossing fingers and toes ...
FORMER employees now have OCAST funding for project very similar to TDCP's OCAST grant.
Were they required to report major employees change of status on SEC filings? If so, which report?
This money is gone. They did not use all possible, It looks like they used it to match Hakki's salary when he was still there.
I am trying to figure out where former TDCP employees who do have funding for cspace 2.0 are working.
On the new product development. Are they using the same facilities TDSP did?
Someone also needs to figure out where research is being performed.
IMO, someone needs to get a copy of the proposal for the OCAST funding and look at the budget and employee/PI details. I've tried without success.
The funding agencies apparently do not make judgments about the salaries being paid as part of an award. I found - and questioned - $96K for 16 hours per week for a masters degree holder who previously worked for a state agency for less than that full time and was told that reviewers had great latitude and did not question the appropriateness of that budget item.
Having a woman owned business and PI is a definite advantage for awards and contracts. Look at Linkedin profiles for both and figure out who is the likely owner.
Look at OK SOS business registrations too. Registered Agent is not necessarily the owner and must be at a location open during normal business hours. Look at Tulsa Country Assessor database for address and tax info.
I am concerned that TDCP investors and, perhaps, management have been misinformed about the employer-employee relationships and outside interests involving company employees and "consultants". An income of $144,000 in OK for a relatively new PhD is high for a full time job much less than the equivalent $288K for half time.
OCAST does NOT partner or endorse any company that it provides research funding to. The university CANNOT endorse a company either; it is against state law.
You need to speak with OCAST Open Records Officer about the actual relationship. Some companies are improperly using OCAST logo to mislead customers and investors about the relationship.
Actually, Badia is the PI according to my info from OCAST. It is
very similar to TDCP's. anyone interested needs to OK Open Records for the proposals (there are 3; ; the first OPTECKS with Hakki as PI was not funded).
How can they justify getting funding for the next generation when the current version does not work when the PI on both is the same person?
A degree from the university does not grant them special privileges for the use of facilities or IP.
The appearance of a single individual as the PI for two similar projects for different employers is suspect - especially when one employer belongs to his wife and he is a principal. Did TDCP get true value for its payments.
There is evidence of unpaid use of university facilities by TDCP. Somebody needs to be on top of the unreimbursed use of facilities and conflicts of interest for this and similar projects.
The IP appears to belong to TDCP as long as it exists. The SRA does not seem to have an escape clause to permit the university to revoke the use by TDCP.
Remember too that the university has an ownership interest in TDCP.
Since Hakki could not make this work at a production level with investor support, why should anyone believe that he can do so when he is on his own?
There is something not right about what has not been revealed to the shareholders regarding the relationship changes and another company working on/using TDCP's IP.
Why do you think Hakki's privately held company will get the IP from OU?
To work on the next generation of the product in his own company
What is an employee for SEC reporting purposes? Does a consultant count? If so, should not all consultants be listed as employees in the SEC filing?
Did they try to sell it or is it the root of more powerful products being sold elsewhere?
True. One still has to wonder why the consulting arrangement was kept secret from the investors for so long.
If Hakki was aware of illegal activity - and as CTO even as a consultant should be considered a full participant in the activities of the company - and did not report it to the SEC or other legal authority then he is complicit in the fraud.
The first phase of the STTR/SBIR grants is the proof of concept and phase 2 is development. Some agencies permit a second phase 2 award which takes funding to about 5 years total time for phase 1 plus 2 phase 2. (I have seen documents for a second phase 2 award so know this does occur.) There can also be no cost extensions. Only phase 1 awardees can compete for phase 2 funding. Unlike OCAST, there is no match requirement. The third phase is the commercialization for which there is not government funding.
There are announcements for "direct to phase 2" in some areas.
To which agency and solicitation was the SBIR proposal? Only by reviewing the solicitations can the importance of an employed PI be determined.
The next generation of Cspace has registered to apply for SBIR/STTR funding.
Are you sure you are angry at the right people? The loss of the PI has a significant effect on grant funding, more so than management
More than that if you count what OU spent and was stuck with stock when company could not meet financial obligations.
My concern is the failure to update the investors on the relationships of Hakki, Optecks, and Sluss (was PI on website long after SRA lapsed). Even other public sites did not list Hakki's relationship in Optecks and consulting arrangement with TDCP until recently.
Who arranged for the shareholders meeting at OU?
How could Hakki be the PI on proposals for two competing products? Now Badia is the PI. What is the real story? Who has use of OU's IP now and will have it in the future?
It would be nice to know the "real" story.
Grant was to the company. Remember it is now claimed that he was a consultant and not an employee. This was reported relatively recently.
It would be interesting to know if other companies take the proposals paid for by TDCP and file similar ones - especially for the SBIR program.
I am very uncomfortable with the failure to keep the investors up-to-date with personnel changes and other conduct I find unusual.
Why would TDCP not have legal recourse for their IP? Where does it say that Hakki owns the IP he was paid by TDCP to develop? It sure seems like the investors are being taken advantage of.
Also, claims that Hakki invented cspace does not mesh with Sluss as the PI of the SRA and also listed on the old corporate announcements. There are others on the patents. There is the date separating the OU IP from the TDCP IP.
How can there be development of the next generation when they have yet to get the current generation to be a viable product?
"Moneyman" for the salary he collected for IP that is now being used elsewhere?
Optecks/Badia as PI received $200K OCAST grant for "Next-Generation Full-Color 3D Display". Verbage provided very similar to original 3DICON proposal and identical to 2014 Hakki as PI proposal that was not funded.
It is unclear where the work will be done.
The OCAST grant was terminated because TDCP did not provide an acceptable PI for the research as required by the terms of the award. See the solicitation.
I believe the answer is key to the reason for the inability of the company to move forward at this time. If 2.0 is in the works, why fund future development of an obsolete product. Why does TDCP not have rights to 2.0. Who else is involved in the LLC. Who is funding it. Who wrote and/or paid for the creation of the proposals; the amount mentioned in the SEC document was large.
The other key question is why this was allowed to happen. Where is the non-compete, confidentiality, etc agreements. Do they exist and are being ignored.
The last question is if 2.0 is successful, how does it benefit TDCP if at all.
It bothers me that CSPACE is non-functional yet Hakki is looking for funding for CSPACE 2.0. Has the glass/container problem been eliminates? If so, how?
Ouch - the share price is going the wrong way.
Remember you can check out STTR and SBIR programs registered companies and awards on sbir.gov