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.
now Arrow, imagine if Robot Worx was part of INRA and was integrating bot arms and URC3s? and INRA would be able to have a sales office (move Jacobson to that location) and a demo site roughly halfway between MotorCity and Roboburgh.
can't even imagine how much proprietary knowledge that group has on the arms they work on... man, imo THAT is the perfect fit for vertical integration on the RWT side of things. of course it isn't right down the road from Ft. Myers, and maybe that is the dominating factor?!?
and look at the freakin' URL!!! that could be INRA's main web address on top of all the other things that seem to so gracefully fit the RWT offering.
you have the floor lickety-reverse-split... what exactly would you like to discuss?
yeah, IRBT jumped about 7-8% today on that (and Angle gave a speech today @ a Raymond James conference i think).
been dropping lately - missed their Q and a slew of insider selling in last 6 months or so...
the actual party was an INRA subsidiary "Robotic Workspace Technologies, Inc."
case number = 2:04-cv-611-FtM-29SPC
http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/
what would you like to discuss?
edit: so we shouldn't read your posts?
edit: Licky, if you believe that profit is the sole mover of the pps of an OTCBB issue, you probably should not be investing in OTCBB issues!
well, i read a bunch of ABB's docs too and they put up a vigorous defense all the way through. nonetheless, INRA's rebuttals were always strong, logical, and fun to read, and there were only a few times where i really felt ABB had scored any strong points along the way.
edit: the bulk of it was allegations that INRA's guy asserted would be proven at trial (edit: cannot imagine that Niro would have made those statements without evidence to back them up) ... i did see the transcript of ABB's expert witness deposition where he admitted ABB didn't possess the combined trade secrets until after the April 2002 meeting.
remember reading that the first time, late at night and had to read it twice, and thinking Holy Canole! they can definitely win this thing!
later INRA told the court they didn't need to present their own expert witness, and that they were just gonna use ABB's expert to prove the alleged misappropriation.
bought more after reading that stuff...
it's on the federal court's PACER system, some other people have access to it too.
ya gotta sign up for an account and it's $.08 per page to access the docs (in PDF format).
can't find any of it on google, etc. b/c they use secure https pages.
who did you supposedly talk to @ INRA?
and even if you did (doubt it), maybe they were instructed to parrot the words of the PR b/c of the NDA?
you pulled this same sort of stuff months ago, although it was in a string of profanity-laden posts about the pps going to .0001 and hundreds of millions of share dilution.
remember those posts big guy?
wish i could accomodate SP, but i already mm'ed you a LONG time ago bud!
as for the excavation, i'm digging where possible. somebody posted a few days ago that we should send someone to the local tavern on the lookout for INRA employees whooping it up.
now that'd be some primary research!
yeah, maybe you're trying to foment doubt (again) because you want shares? we've seen this routine from you before.
imo this is the hangover of the flight of the momo crowd that fled after the 8K and INRA didn't have any PR follow-up to keep the interest of that fast-moving crowd's money.
why don't you do it for us and report what you learn?
okay, now we know you are just guessing!
the mediation in that case was in the Fall, and we heard (granted, just second-hand rumors) that $10M was offered during mediation.
some of what appeared to be the more damaging stuff alleged seemed to be discovered after the mediation was already over.
the thing was supposed to go to trial 6 days from today.
i disagree effer... below is the language of the terms of his incentive package and the dilution isn't that significant considering what he can bring to INRA.
The Ashcroft Group and we further agreed that John Ashcroft will become the Chairman of our Board of Advisors. In consideration of such services to be rendered and for serving on our Board of Advisors, we will compensate the Consultant with a monthly cash payment of $10,000 and with 2,000,000 shares of our restricted common stock, and warrants to purchase up to an additional 2,000,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $0.15 per share, if through Consultant’s direct efforts and introductions our sales (including the Company’s subsidiaries’ sales) are increased by the direct efforts of Consultant in accordance with the following schedule:
28
(a)
Warrants to purchase 1,000,000 shares if through the Consultant’s direct efforts and introductions, our sales (including its subsidiaries’ sales) are increased by $5,000,000.
(b)
Warrants to purchase an additional 1,000,000 shares if through the Consultant’s direct efforts and introductions, our sales (including its subsidiaries’ sales) are increased by an additional $10,000,000 for a total increase of Fifteen Million Dollars in sales.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156784/000114420406050988/v059435_sb2-a.htm
yeah, SoftParade is good, he's been on some other boards that some of us know and always well worth reading his observations.
membermark him at your leisure!
think you're missing a zero effer - Ashcroft Group got 2M restricted (split-adjusted) as a "signing bonus" that's closer to 2% (plus he got warrants @ $.15).
the rest of his package is incentive-based and triggered upon sales. so, if he lands a $5-10M DoD contract, it would seem he was well worth the 2% imo.
sure is. there was an admission by ABB's expert witness during his deposition that ABB did not possess 8 trade secret technologies.
one of the ABB execs who attended the INRA meeting (a guy named Calardo) allegedly took 4 pages of notes during that INRA meeting (after allegedly promising not to take notes) and then allegedly took another 54 pages of notes during the alleged "Endeavor" meeting that allegedly took place 2 days after the INRA meeting (with only ABB execs), and those 54 pages weren't produced in discovery (and were subject to a motion to compel when the settlement happened).
then there's the allegation that INRA had evidence that ABB had never intended to proceed w/any acquisition. that stinks of "bad faith" imo and is where a jury may have awarded double damages.
the $3M figure is so illogical, especially after all the various reports coming in from shareholders who were told this amount was rejected, and that offer was refused, etc., when one looks at the record of the case.
why wouldn't INRA take it to a jury after 2 years if they had this evidence? it seems very possible, if not probable, that a Florida jury would have awarded damages, and perhaps even the punitive double damages (assuming INRA could prove that ABB sent execs to that meeting solely to get that "free look" at INRA's tech).
not really sure what if anything will come from our little message board post-mortem, but it still does not add up imo.
and the settlement requires any disclosure requirements by the SEC. so, we should know one way or another eventually. if we never see anything more in the financials, then we'll know that $3M wasthe whole deal... until that time (presumably the Q1 10QSB due out in mid-May) i'm sticking w/my belief that the 8Ked info seems incredibly insufficient and that there is likely some sort of other "side-deal."
but even such a "side-deal" seems like it should receive 8K treatment imo...
ABB trial brief excerpt.
TRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF ROBOTIC WORKSPACE TECHNOLOGIES
I. THE LAWSUIT
This case is about (i) a relationship of trust and confidence, (ii) the misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of that relationship and (iii) breaches of two written confidentiality agreements and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. RWT is a small company based in Ft. Myers; its specialty is robotics, the use of mechanical devices that can be programmed to perform different tasks. The predetermined movement of such robots is defined by controllers and, in 2002, RWT had designed a so-called universal robot controller (“URC”), a device that would permit control of multiple different robots from a single controller.
RWT was formed by Walt Weisel, a career specialist in robotics, who in 1990 convinced a group of local businessmen, friends and family members to invest in his new company. At one point, Ford also became an investor, putting up $3 million for a 10% stake in the company. The employees of RWT had diverse technical and business backgrounds, but with a common focus on computers and robotic technology. RWT was small but innovative.
II. THE FACTS
The relevant facts are these:
• The Swedish-based defendant, ABB Automation Technologies AB, is an industry leader in robotics, but, by 2002, had significant problems: (i) it needed innovative technology to stay competitive, (ii) it had been tossed out of Chrysler (a major automotive customer) and needed a way to get back into Chrysler’s good graces, and (iii) it did not have a commercial controller that could be used with multiple different robots or that offered advanced features of the type then being developed by the much smaller, but highly innovative, RWT.
• ABB realized that RWT had strong contacts in the automotive industry, that RWT had “powerful ideas” that “could be the next trend in the industry, and that ABB could benefit by getting access to those ideas and plans.
• RWT, in turn, had its own problems: it had innovative technology, but not enough money and financial support to get its ideas to market. RWT needed an infusion of cash or a possible merger and ABB offered that opportunity.
• To pursue its goal, RWT hired a financial consultant, James Clancy, from Boston to help it get financing; he, in turn, contacted ABB after RWT’s founder, Walt Weisel, earlier had laid the groundwork for a possible acquisition.
• A meeting was scheduled in Ft. Myers for April 9, 2002 and three key business and technical executives from ABB were selected to attend. Unbeknownst to RWT, however, ABB had some secret plans of its own. First, it concealed the fact that it really had little interest in acquiring RWT (though it represented to RWT that it did).
Second, what ABB really wanted was a free look at RWT to see what technology it had and to learn how to regain access to Chrysler. ABB admitted in secret documents that the real purpose of its visit was to “learn about [RWT’s] ideas and plan,” not to investigate a possible acquisition.
• Also unbeknownst to RWT was the fact that ABB had scheduled on April 12, 2002, an important business meeting just two days after its meeting with RWT. This meeting was to plan the launch of a secret, new product directly competitive with RWT’s universal robot controller (“URC”). The secret project was code-named Endeavour, but no one at RWT was told anything about it or even about its existence or ABB’s secret plans to develop something directly competitive with RWT.
• The meeting took place under a condition of strict confidentiality: RWT was to show and tell all, but ABB had to agree not to use or disclose RWT’s trade secrets.
• The three ABB visitors signed a visitor pass agreeing:
In consideration of being admitted to the facility of Robotic Workspace Technologies, Inc. (RWT), I agree to hold in the strictest confidence any proprietary information which is disclosed to me. I agree not to remove any document, equipment or other materials on the premises, and that I will not photograph or otherwise record any information to which I have access during my visit, ... (emphasis added).
• The three ABB visitors also signed a confidentiality agreement that required that ABB:
... shall not at any time disclose to any person, or use for its own benefit or the benefit of any third party, such Confidential Information without the prior written consent of the disclosing party [RWT]....
• At the April 9, 2002 meeting, RWT disclosed these nine technical trade secrets for use in combination in a universal robot controller (“URC”):
• The concept of a split control configuration (i) with multiple drive units to be matched to individual robots or robotic devices and/or (ii) for multiple drive units, including multiple manufacturers, multiple models and multiple robot configurations.
• The concept of a gatekeeper computer to communicate between a commercial operating system and multiple robotics applications.
• The use of universal control language capable of controlling multiple robots or devices for use in doing such control.
• Analyzing collision detection among robots on a control module at job site.
• Software compensation and calibration procedures for mechanical inaccuracies in calibration.
• A method for achieving immediate restart after full power loss or from an emergency stop, including maintaining a pointer into a queue.
• A method of maintaining tracking with power off at a drive/power module.
• RWT’s plans for a touch screen teach pendant.
• Replacing the touch screen on the control module with a teach pendant touch screen.
• RWT also disclosed the following three non-technical business trade secrets at the meeting:
• Description of the particularized needs of customers such as Daimler Chrysler, including a methodology for dealing with Daimler Chrysler.
• RWT’s model for reduction of cost for control module by addition of teach pendant with touch screen;
• The pricing, cost, profitability, vendor identification, particularized needs of specific customers, parts lists, pending proposals, market studies and related business and financial information as contained in the documents shown during and the presentations made during the April 9, 2002 meeting.
• After it got what it wanted (access to RWT’s ideas and plans), ABB informed RWT it would not go forward with an acquisition and would not infuse badly needed cash. RWT, in turn, nearly went out of business, laying off most of its staff and facing possible bankruptcy.
• Then, in 2003, ABB introduced its new URC called the IRC5 in Europe; a year later, the same controller was introduced in the United States market. That product contained RWT’s trade secrets and by duplicating RWT’s technology, ABB also regained its position with Chrysler, based upon the advice, direction and technology RWT had shared with it.
• Admittedly, the IRC5 uses the combination of eight or more of the nine technical trade secrets (at trial, we will prove use of all nine technical secrets in combination) and ABB benefitted from its free look at the three non-technical business trade secrets as well.
• ABB’s profits on its IRC5 through May 2006 are $58 million; through March 2007, they are projected to be approximately $78 million. Under the law, if those profits were obtained through misappropriation, they must be forfeited or, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty paid to RWT for their use. Fla. Stat. § 688.004.
III. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR RWT’S CLAIMS
A. Florida Trade Secret Act
In Florida, like many states, it is unlawful to misappropriate trade secrets. A trade secret can be virtually anything -- a compilation of technical information, methods, devices, processes, know-how, customer lists or business information -- that is of value and is not generally known to the public at the time of its misappropriation. Misappropriation, in turn, is the taking or using of trade secrets by improper means, that is, through violation of a confidential relationship or an agreement to maintain a trade secret in confidence. Fla. Stat. § 688.002.
Damages can be awarded not only the actual loss suffered by the trade secret owner, but any unjust enrichment gained by the misappropriator. Fla. Stat. § 688.004(1). The Court or a jury can ultimately impose a reasonable royalty for misappropriation and award punitive damages in an amount not to exceed twice the amount of any actual loss or unjust enrichment. Fla. Stat. § 688.004(2).
B. Trade Secrets Can Exist In A Combination Of What is Already Known
ABB’s own proposed jury instruction no. 9 admits that: “a trade secret can exist in a combination of characteristics and components, each of which, by itself, is in the public domain, but in the unified process, design or operation of which, in unique combination, affords a competitive advantage” (ABB’s proposed jury instruction no. 9, Document No. 67 at 14). See also, e.g., One Stop Deli, Inc. v. Franco’s, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17295, *27 (W.D. Va. 1993) (a trade secret may consist of “uniquely combined commonplace elements”); Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 377 Mass. 159,169, 385 N.E.2d 1349, 1356 (1979) (“The fact that a process is the combination and adaptation of old principles to new purposes does not prevent the process from being a trade secret if the process as distilled accomplishes a result which gives the holder a competitive advantage due to his own ingenuity, research and development.”); Picker International Corp. v. Imaging Equipment Services, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 18, 38 (D. Mass. 1995) (“Generally, a compilation of information which is used in a business can be a trade secret. A compilation of public information is protected if that information is, as a result of a business’ efforts, combined in a unique way.”) (citations omitted); Illuminations, Inc. v. Waldoroth Label Corp., 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13357, *7 (D. Mass. 1981) (“It would appear that a unique adaptation of products already on the general market and used in the trade constitute a trade secret.”); Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 890, 899 (Minn.Sup.Ct. 1983) (“The exact combination of features ... is unique, even though none of the processes or features [standing alone] is unique in the industry.”); Thermodyne Food Service Products, Inc. v. Aftec, Inc., 940 F.Supp. 1300, 1304-05 & n.4 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (trade secret can consist of combination of known information); Perdue Farms Inc. v. Hook, 777 So.2d 1047, 1049-50 (Fla. App. 2001) (integrated combination of known unit operations to create a “process for cooking chicken which involved placing specially seasoned pieces of chicken in a vacuum-sealed bag ... refrigerating the chicken after cooking, and then reheating the chicken using a microwave in combination with one of four other types of ovens: a pizza oven, a deep fryer, a convection oven, or a conventional broiler oven” accorded protection under Florida trade secret statute); Computer Care v. Service Systems Enterprises, Inc., 982 F.2d 1063, 1072 (7th Cir. 1992) (“A trade secret can exist in a combination of characteristics and components, each of which, by itself, is in the public domain, but the unified process design and operation of which in unique combination affords a competitive advantage and is a protectable trade secret.”); Rivendell Forest Products, Ltd. v. Georgia- Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042, 1045 (10th Cir. 1994) (“The authorities recognize that a trade secret such as the one here claimed [a computer software program] can consist of a combination of elements which are in the public domain.”) (collecting cases).
At trial, the evidence will show that the likelihood of two entities independently creating and using the nine technical trade secrets is over 500,000 to 1 or less than 1/200th of 1%. RWT created the unique combination of trade secrets and ABB took and used them.
C. Misappropriation Of Even One Trade Secret Creates Liability
The number of trade secrets misappropriated – whether it is nine, eight, seven or some lesser number (even one) – does not affect RWT’s entitlement to relief. In any trade secret case like this one that involves more than one asserted trade secret, the defendant may be found liable if it misappropriated one or more, but less than all of the asserted trade secrets. Individual trade secrets are not like elements in a patent claim; not all need be satisfied for liability to attach. Union Carbide Corp. v. UGI Corp., 731 F.2d 1186, 1191-92 (5th Cir. 1984) (“The fact that a single trade secret may be disclosed is enough.”); Pepsico, Inc. v. Redmond, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19437, at *82-*83 (N.D. Ill. 1994), aff’d, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995); FMC Corp. v. Varco International, Inc., 677 F.2d 500, 503 (5th Cir. 1982).
D. RWT’s Working Prototype Is Evidence Of Its Trade Secrets
At the April 9, 2002 meeting, ABB saw a prototype URC designed by RWT. The demonstration of a successfully-functioning, actual device or system can itself constitute a trade secret. See, e.g., Perdue Farms Inc. v. Hook, 777 So.2d 1047, 1049-50 (Fla. App. 2001) (integrated, working “process for cooking chicken which involved placing specially seasoned pieces of chicken in a vacuum-sealed bag (commonly referred to in the industry as ‘sousvide’), refrigerating the chicken after cooking, and then reheating the chicken using a microwave in combination with one of four other types of ovens: a pizza oven, a deep fryer, a convection oven, or a conventional broiler oven” accorded protection under Florida trade secret statute; misappropriation found even though defendant was never given a written description of the process); Sikes v. McGraw-Edison Co., 665 F.2d 731, 735-36 (5th Cir. 1982) (holding that a demonstration of a working weed-cutting device constituted a trade secret); Water Services, Inc. v. Tesco Chemicals, Inc., 410 F.2d 163, 173 (5th Cir. 1969) (“The trade secret here was the application of known techniques and the assembly of available components to create the first successful system in the industry. In the trial judge’s words, ‘no components had been brought together into one lightweight automated system until the perfection of the Treat-A-Matic’ .... The composition was unique and conferred a substantial competitive advantage on Farris. Indeed, the company enjoyed unparalleled financial success during the four years that competitors were unsuccessfully trying to duplicate the TREAT-A-MATIC.”) (emphasis added); Metallurgical Industries, Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790 F.2d 1195, 1202 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that a demonstration of a zinc-recovery furnace constituted a trade secret; citing Sikes and Water Services); Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. Playwood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 718 & 721-30 (7th Cir. 2003) (cutting grooves into toy train track to produce “clickety-clack” sound qualified for protection under Illinois’ enactment of UTSA; misappropriation occurred when grooved track was demonstrated at meeting; fact that it cost virtually nothing to create the trade secret did not negate protection). Here, the trial evidence will show that ABB’s personnel witnessed a demonstration of just such a functioning device, the first of its kind (as ABB’s expert Mason admitted). That evidence alone satisfies the requirement for the existence of a trade secret.
E. The IRC5’s “One Chance In 247” Combination Of Design
Similarities Supports A Conclusion Of Trade Secret Misappropriation
ABB’s own expert Mason has admitted that ABB’s IRC5 controller includes the combination of eight of the nine technical trade secrets asserted by RWT and that there is only one chance in 247 (less than 0.5%) that all those eight trade secrets would have been combined together in a single device, among all possible ways to combine those eight items of technology (see ABB’s Reply Br. p. 15 n.10). In fact, when actual possibilities are considered, the chances are less than 1/200th of 1%.
Under the law, such startling similarity in design choices is strong evidence of trade secret misappropriation. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 925 F.2d 174, 178-79 (7th Cir. 1991); Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Keystone Steel Fabrication, Inc., 584 F.2d 946, 952 (10th Cir. 1978) (a jury could find that “[defendant] did not have to experiment with the broad range of disclosed [technical information] to determine the proper starting point.”); Holtke v. C.M. Kemp Mfg. Co., 80 F.2d 912, 924 (4th Cir. 1936); Sokol Crystal Products, Inc. v. DSC Communications Corp., 15 F.3d 1427, 1431-32 (7th Cir. 1996) (affirming finding of misappropriation based on circumstantial evidence and despite absence of direct evidence of access to plaintiff’s trade secrets or use of such secrets); Dickerman Associates, Inc. v. Tiverton Bottled Gas Co., 594 F.Supp. 30, 34-35 (D. Mass. 1984) (noting numerous similarities to plaintiff’s program in defendant’s computer software package and finding trade secret misappropriation); Restatement (Third) Of Unfair Competition §40, comment (c) (1993) (“Although the trade secret owner bears the burden of proving unauthorized use, proof of the defendant’s knowledge of the trade secret together with substantial similarities between the parties’ products or processes may justify an inference of use by the defendant.”); Southwestern Energy Co. v. Eickenhorst, 955 F.Supp. 1078, 1085 (W.D. Ark. 1997) (“Direct evidence of theft of trade secret is rarely available and not required in order to maintain the action. Instead, a plaintiff may maintain an action for theft of trade secrets based entirely on circumstantial evidence.”) (citation omitted).
F. ABB Cannot Properly Argue That It Could Somehow Have Learned RWT’s Trade Secrets From Other Sources When It Did Not
The existence of alleged public disclosures of trade secrets is relevant only if a defendant actually relied on them. And the burden of proving such innocent reliance is on the defendants. Indeed, under the law, one who breaches an obligation of confidence and uses confidential information to the owner’s detriment is liable despite the fact that the information could have been lawfully obtained. Biodynamic Technologies, Inc. v. Chattanooga Corp., 644 F.Supp. 607, 611 (S.D. Fla. 1986) (“The principle that because a secret is of such a nature that it can be discovered by lawful means does not deprive its owner of a right to protection from those who obtain it unlawfully is not only generally accepted, it is also sagacious. Any other policy would have a halting effect on commercial transactions,” relying upon E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012, 1015-1016 (5th Cir. 1970), Sikes v. McGraw-Edison Co., 665 F.2d 731, 735-36 (5th Cir. 1982) and Smith v. Dravo Corp., 203 F.2d 369, 375 (7th Cir. 1953) and explicitly rejecting the argument that “where a claimed trade secret is embodied by the product itself, the secret is lost when the product is marketed and sold to the public”). See also, e.g., Analogic Corp. v. Data Translation, Inc., 371 Mass. 643, 358 N.E.2d 804 (1976) (affirming entry of an the injunction against a misappropriator of confidential information, even though the information could have been gained by reverse engineering); Pioneer Hi-Bred International Corp. v. Holden Foundation Seeds, Inc., 35 F.3d 1226, 1237 (8th Cir. 1993) (“Many courts have held that the fact that one ‘could’ have obtained a trade secret lawfully is not a defense if one does not actually use proper means to acquire the information.”)(collecting cases); Amvac Chemical Corp. v. Thermilind, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20151, *19 (D. Or. 1999) (same); Prescott v. Morton International, Inc., 769 F.Supp. 404, 409 (D. Mass. 1990) (holding that summary judgment of no misappropriation was improper where defendant used confidential blueprints to manufacture a product, even though the information in the blueprints could have been determined by reverse engineering of a commercial product); Picker International Corp. v. Imaging Equipment Services, Inc., 931 F.Supp. 18, 40 (D. Mass. 1995) (“However, even assuming, without finding, that [plaintiff’s] conduct caused the service manuals to lose their status as trade secrets with regard to an honest competitor, the manuals are entitled to protection as confidential business information against the defendants, who engaged in pervasive misconduct to obtain and use them, without cost, to build and sustain [the defendants’] business.”); Servo Corporation of America v. General Electric Co., 393 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1967) (“Only if proof is offered to show that General Electric obtained its knowledge from them and not the April 10, 1958 inspection, need the question of their sufficiency, singly or collectively, to disclose the working combination be considered. In that determination, we hold, further, that the burden of proving innocent reliance on nonconfidential sources rests on General Electric.”). Notably, these cases place upon the defendants the burden of proving that publicly-available sources were, in fact, used, a burden ABB cannot meet. See, e.g., Computer Associates International, Inc. v. American Fundware, Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1516, 1529 (D. Colo. 1993) (placing burden on defendant to show that an asserted trade secret was present in a publication filed with the Copyright Office); National Instrument Laboratories v. Hycel, Inc., 478 F.Supp. 1179, 1181-82 (D. Del. 1979) (placing burden of showing public availability on defendant upon showing by plaintiff that defendant had access to plaintiff’s design information in a relationship of trust and confidence); Henry Hope X-Ray Products, Inc. v. Marron Carrel, Inc., 674 F.2d 1336, 1342 (9th Cir. 1982) (“The defendants also failed to show that Hope’s patents revealed the [trade secrets]....”) (emphasis added); Benton v. Ward, 59 F. 411, 414 (N.D. Ia. 1894) (“Upon the issue whether the process was in fact a new and secret one, the burden is upon complainant [the party accused of misappropriating trade secrets] to establish the fact that it was not ....”); Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171, 174 (2d Cir. 1990) (“The defendants have not shown that the limited information available in the promotional literature contains sufficient technical detail to constitute disclosure of the [trade secrets].”) (emphasis added).
what's the "test" for?
checking which alias you're using?
edit: hey chunga, weo first posted "wildcard" in October...
doubt too many long-timers bought on the ABB lawsuit prospects, but after hearing time & again that this offer was rejected or that one, etc., the structure of all this has resulted in bigtime confusion and disbelief.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/msgsearchbyboard.asp?SearchStr=wildcard&BoardID=2096&srch...
edit: 11763 bored reads so far today... and i've wasted half of a day off.
Ashcroft's stock is also restricted, fyi.
you have been a "basher" before though... some knuckleheads can't distinguish between a long who wants a company to evolve and succeed from what is generally considered a "basher."
you had a spate for about a week last Fall where you were all over the road and went to "basher" status w/nonsense posts, profanity every other word, claiming pps of $.0001 and stupid stuff like that.
there's a chasm of difference between the two and that's in the past. you're back and claim your posts will be w/in the TOU, so you're back... now bring some value!
doesn't bother me if people criticize and have a basis for the criticism, that's not a "basher" in my book.
but when you go to hit that "F" on the keyboard, please make sure you're typing fundamentals, or financials, or something similar.
thanks in advance!
INRA-ABB settlement docs
non-binding LOL! chunga!
edit: you wrote: "I know they read this board."
so why do we need to be schmoozed and soft-shoed by a mgmt sales job in Ft Myers?
have also heard they read the board (but don't know it to be a fact). also note that we had a few newbs show up and try to defend mgmt w/that same old nonsense: "daytraders trying to flip for a few pennies, blah,blah,blah."
many of the posters here have been following this company for quite a while, some for years. so it isn't a question of daytrader impatience, it's a question of building visibility and awareness from which volume, liquidity and sustained pps appreciation follow.
you can't tell me they don't know what the sentiment is out there - just pull up a chart! 50% haircut in 2 trading sessions says it all...
edit: $3M doesn't make sense so close to trial considering ABB's expert admitted under oath that ABB did not have the combined technology that RWT claimed was theirs and disclosed under confidential circumstances in April 2002. RWT's trial brief asserted that ABB's profits on the IRC5 were $78M through March 2007. Seems they had the ability to have a Florida jury decide the dispute, and if they showed "bad faith" a jury could have doubled the award.
also, Niro reportedly took the case on contingency. Hard to believe he litigated this thing for 2 years and on the eve of trial agreed to such a low number.
we will see in time, but it doesn't add up imo. if we later learned that they did only get $3M, then they got JOBBED imo, and the pps punishment is somewhat justified (though definitely not a 50% haircut).
if you deliver us a "field report" on Altronics (w/pics) i'll even give ya a membermark!!!
it's only about 30 miles from Ft Myers. You could round trip it in 2-3 hours (incl. meeting Fleming & getting a tour).
Altronics Service, Inc.
4240 James St. Unit #3
Port Charlotte, FL 33980
Phone: 941-743-0023
Fax: 941-766-0015
chunga - i dunno brother, it doesn't make any freakin sense! these guys have a common interest w/us, they hold a bunch of stock (incl the Coro crew) and it would seem they would actually be proud of some of the accomplishments and prospects that we keep finding in DD.
there was ridiculous momo here and a bright spotlight... all they had to do was share wtf they are doing and we'd be well on our way.
that's what a bunch of today's conversation has been about. INRA doesn't seem to be willing to showcase what they are doing, and as a result the market has punished the pps when it coulda been moving on its way to $.50.
they could easily have a broad supportive shareholder base and a pps moving at a 45 degree incline. this board has found stuff that has not been announced.
don't know why the company has this policy... it's especially confounding when you look at how much equity insiders hold!
most OTCBB issues have insiders that just constantly unload their stock, INRA's insider ownership is sorta high on a relative basis.
makes no sense to me.
you're the local. your mortgage biz has gotta be pretty slow these days. why don't you get in the car, bring a digital camera, and stop by Altronics. get a tour, talk to Fleming, take some pics and post 'em here.
looks to me to be a terribly low margin biz, but as i commented earlier it might help reduce URC3 build times.
can't imagine there would be that from acquiring Altronics. somebody PMed me that they had talked w/St. Onge about it, and that there is apparently some steady cash-flow there.
i think most of us want to see more focus and investment on the software side of things, the stuff that can really create high margins and value and give INRA a strong competitve advantage.
take a ride over there demetri and bring us some info!
can you stay w/in the TOU this time?
Hey Licky, this guy is probably one of the most experienced investors on iHub... here's what he just posted:
"UPdate INRA
Low volume and so it drifts lower.
CEO is going to have to rescue this himself... the market won't do it for him."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17642144
but he only has around 560 membermarks, what does he know?
the really messed up thing is that he is among a large group of experienced investors who are constantly looking for a long-term investment that could deliver a Nasdaq listing from the dreck down here. He's also among those who are watching INRA to decide whether it is dreck or a misunderstood gem.
mgmt has the oppty to showcase their biz and its prospects.
it's up to them to perform, or enjoy staying down here w/the occasional pop.
here's fringe's recent chart:
and here's another from the last few days:
only after i complete my DD period...
"SPIN, If I save your post... does that make the "LOL" binding???"
how 'bout using a few paragraphs...mmmmkay?
take the ad hominem approach all you want Licky. some of us have been around the OTCBB block a few times and have a sense of what moves stocks and what gets them ignored.
"always settles back to 15 cents..."
wait a minute, didn't you just give the "base" a 50% hike?
and btw, Lickster, it takes me seconds to find & post a pic.
lick this one:
non-binding LOL sand!
also, we've known they have been on the M&A trail for months and they just allowed some of their "deal currency" to get cut in half.
if there was no news, that would be one thing, but this board has uncovered a BUNCH of stuff that coulda-shoulda been PRed.
sexy stuff.
Microsoft stuff.
such a shame...
so true sand... "then they'll just keep blaming stock woes on "daytraders", etc. The typical, and usual, sidestepping and deflection."
would also add that having flunky newb posters defending mgmt miscues doesn't exactly build any value either!
can you show me the chart where the "base used to be 0.010"
it consistently traded around $.20 (split-adjusted) all Fall, the 100 DMA is $.22, and the 200DMA is $.30!!
"up or down a few pennies."
how 'bout down 50%?
and the most frustrating thing about that is this board has found numerous instances of news events that the company has not communicated to the market... but then they give us a non-binding LOL about a glorified CNC garage that only accelerated the sell-off (good prediction by fringe btw).
seems to be more about it's geographic proximity to Ft. Myers than any true vertical synergies to the highest-potential growth areas of this company's potential markets.
maybe it will reduce their build times on future URC3 sales, but we don't know that yet.
or spell. eom.
too funny!
research this thing regularly (and share my findings), have prolly forgotten more about it than you know (which appears to be limited to whatever your personal Geppetto is telling you), built the iBox, and spread the word about INRA to many of the savviest investors on iHub (which i now greatly regret).
yep, that's what "paid bashers" do...
btw, there was a 178,000 share trade booked after the close @ .1729 - VWAP perhaps?
13% below RS pps - eom.