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.
Here's the thing about those 2 Ironridge transactions. I'd have to look again but believe they were being compensated for company obligations that were transferred to them. The agreement had a complicated formula that protected Ironridge if the share price fell. They were able to sell as many shares as that formula would allow, but only hold a certain % amount at any one time. You would only know the exact amount of shares you were able to sell after the time period(another formula based on the trading volume) was done. So it It can be kind of a gamble, but if they believe in the future of the company they would sell as many as the formula would allow(and that number got bigger as the share price fell, which you guessed it, it did), hoping the share price didn't suddenly rocket on some news and really mess things up for them, but make sure and hold the maximum percentage they were allowed to keep. Now it's possible the % number they were allowed to keep actually went up as things progressed because of them demanding more shares to be added to the issued share number. Until the filings hit we'll have no idea what happened, and even then it will probably only give us the shares Ironridge was allowed to hold, not the total number they may have added to the float. It could be nil and it could be quite large, although I don't think there's any way it can explain the jump from, well I can't remember, but it seems as if it was in the neighborhood of 150 or 60 million to the 300 it appears to be today.
C'mon Lio. Not correct about Ironridge and IBM. The picture was pretty bleak when Ironridge got involved. Where's that 2nd quote from?
Not Rik. And thank you for the kind words age wise but I was in the stock at that point, having bought below $1 when it was on no ones radar to speak of. Crazy Internet bubble days. I found it because I was following MetaCreations and when John Wilszak(sp?)resigned someone pointed to the fact that he took over at Ants. To preemptively answer your question, no I didn't. It was short term capital gains and I was sure it was gonna do a repeat of the Vancouver fiasco, in other words head to 100 dollars. Lesson kinda learned - never base your market decisions on tax implications.
Nevertheless, I believe if this product became ubiquitous, with no particular vendor controlling it, profits would fall if not made up for in some other way. Companies love to get you locked in. The only winners would be the vendors with the best products who are "stealing" the business of others. Customers, on the other hand, would benefit.
Very interesting. The Frank speculation coming from your friend in Hawaii? Are you sure he hasn't been reading what i've been speculating and embellishing it.I'll go back to what I remember Don Haderle saying on a conference call after, I believe, the IBM announcement. When Joe asked him about the potential of the product he replied "exciting beyond belief". Now, you might buy off some minor IBM employee and get him to say that, but Don???? I think as the "father of DB2", he would know the potential as well as anyone.
Conspiratorial, but can't resist. What happens to drug companies profits when 1 finds the cure for cancer. And this particular "cure" can't necessarily be controlled by one company. When it's easier for a customer to walk away from a product the company selling the product can't be quite so demanding. As Joe said in that video I posted the other day, you know how many databases you really need? Two. One to keep the other honest. And no, I don't really believe there's a concerted effort by the database industry to squash this product. I hope
T, you're talking too much. and we love a for it,, but allow me to correct something. The group of investors I was referring to were looking to negotiate for the defaulted exchange notes that Manchester, JGB, and one or two others held. They were due at the end of last year, and when that sale didn't materialize the notes became a problem. I have no idea if the group was successful or not. If they were that's probably good for us. The intent was to help the company. A lot of people that posted on Ragingbull including myself received an email to see if we might be interested. I have no idea what time period that was but the discussion about receiving the emails is still on the bull.
T, the name that escapes you is Alan Dinsmore. And I can't locate any press regarding his participation. Anyone? Anyway, I think I remember him coming back as a member of the technical advisory committee, which is what Don Haderle and Warren Lucas were part of, and not as an employee.
Joe didn't strike me as a "master of putting out pr". I've found references to companies using the ACS that were never mentioned in pr's. None were ever specifically named at the time, but the #'s were greater than I thought. I'm starting to recollect when I first saw that India site. It was nowhere near as obvious in it's connection to Ants as it is now. It may have been a venture that never got traction as Ants crashed and burned. They appear to be using the original ACS as outlined in one of Franks blogs.
" ANTS marketing group is in early discussions with several Data Base migration providers. Using elements of the Early ACS Architecture (EAA) and adding technical capacity developed in collaboration with other providers would allow ANTs to capitalize on years of work on Early ACS Architecture (EAA) and provide a unique solution to each Data Base migration provider and their clients without compromising ANTs ACS Advanced Architecture (AAA) in the broader marketplace."
That's not what sent the stock over $3 as you well know. Now I'd have to check on this as it was from memory when I thought about it several years ago, but I'm pretty sure the date for the Ants/IBM announcement in Rome as given by Joe in an NDA conference call was off by a few days, and that was the exact day the stock peaked. People talk. There were no insider sales that I remember.
Agreed. 3% is an almost impossible thing to interpret. There's the calculating and writing, and there's the research getting the proper information, and who knows what else.
I vaguely remember this site from years ago(I think), and nobody knew anything back then.
Maybe it's my personality, but this is my favorite paragraph from the update, and in particular the phrases "peeling back the layers of the onion", and "irrefutable proof". Irrefutable proof??? Is this a penny stock? Who talks about irrefutable proof in pennyland
"We are aware that many of you have unanswered questions about ANTs Software Inc., the existence of another company named ANTs Software, as well as our long term plan. Please rest assured that we are peeling back the layers of the onion to identify how best to protect our assets, shareholder value, and grow ANTs. We will be publishing the answers to as many questions as possible in the coming weeks and months, just as soon as we have irrefutable proof to support our long term goals. "
Remember when Frank was talking about the preferred shares, saying up to this point he has funded Ants. Do you really think he's out of the picture now? I think I understand as well as any layman the potential of the ACS and the updated AAA. Priced right it is huge. The coming months should prove to be very interesting.
????? Alright, we agree. The law firm has been there since Frank hired them. But now you want to jump to the conclusion they hadn't performed any work? C'mon. No more comment needed.
Tsk,tsk. You know better than that. Rik is not talking about Frank. Frank's got waaaay too much invested at this point. He's not stepping away, just down. All IMHO of course(with good evidence). And about Frank doing nothing. Don Haderle had a substantial relationship with Ants. Do you really think Frank could get away with stating Don's opinion of the AAA in his CEO corner if it wasn't true. Given the history, somebody at IBM knows every move this company makes. And what did Joe say in his blogs that wasn't true? Not what didn't turn out to be true because of unexpected obstacles. That's different. Getting back to your theory that Frank largely ignored financial and legal obligations, you're saying that he first engaged that law firm, then fired them, and then Rik re-hired???? Isn't it much more likely that Rik's talking about the firm Frank hired?
How can you short this thing unless you're a market maker or it's some kind of private arrangement? Do market makers ever post on message boards? Hmmmm....
Work it. You just may get a buying opportunity. As far as I can make out, you're bullish. Good.
Did you read the update? Does this sound like they'll ignore what you seem to think will never happen?
"4-ANTs Software Inc. has engaged the law firm of Taylor-English (http://www.taylorenglish.com ) to represent us in meeting our financial and legal obligations, which were largely ignored during the previous administrations."
"so you will know the who, what, when, where, and how of ANTs "
LOL, ok thanks Rik. Now I know you're at least occasionally reading. With all due respect this update leaves me with more questions than answers. And since you said "We will be publishing the answers to as many questions as possible in the coming weeks and months, just as soon as we have irrefutable proof to support our long term goals." , here are some of mine.
"BOD approved"? Who are the members?
Exactly what were the reasons the original ACS failed? Why is it going to succeed now? Are we talking about one of the 2 versions written years ago or something new?
AGAIN. The who, what, when, where, and how regarding the AAA.
What, pray tell, was inaccurate?
How is the company being funded? Revenues coming in? Preferred shares?
Do you have any timetable regarding the SEC filings?
I haven't seen any form 4's. Any "skin" in the game yet?
Don't get me wrong, I'm very bullish. And I realize you will not be able to address many of these questions for now, nevertheless I ask. I won't be the only one. And I understand that delicate balance between blind faith on one side and complete disclosure on the other putting you at unnessecary risk to competitors and lawyers. I'll impatiently await further updates GO RIK!!!
OK, who hung the "Abandon hope all ye who enter here" sign over the Ants ticker symbol?
I just posted that to show the potential of an ACS or an AAA type product, and I believe we are still the only game in town. I'm quite sure we would have heard about it otherwise. Something happened, although it's unclear exactly what. The story goes that software issues surfaced and a finger pointing battle started between Ants and IBM(this is second hand from Frank). At any rate, from an outsiders point of view shareholders heard a few things about software problems that needed attention, and the big sales that were expected never materialized. Lots of companies used the product in small implementations that were heavily discounted as is the usual practice for getting yourself out there, but nothing like expected. The last contract we heard about was with an unamed electric utility in California that turned out to be Southern California Edison. Frank says they are still using the product, but we are receiving no revenue. Strapped for cash, the debts and fundraising spiraled out of control, until they unsuccessfully tried to sell Ants. You would be justified in thinking maybe Joe was blowing smoke in that video, except there's too much evidence the product is everything he said. This was/is in IBM hardware after all.
Can't argue with that, although for me #1 is the status of the AAA. Who, what, when, where, how? And coal in the stocking LOL, tell me about it. Especially when this kid thought he was getting the best train set a boy ever laid eyes on.
For those that can get over the fact this is Joe Kozak, there's good background information on the original ACS and it's potential in this video. The next version he speaks of in the video was to be a Microsoft to IBM one. I know that because it was mentioned in a call for potential private placement investors. NDA and all, but too much has changed for me to feel honor bound by that anymore. Boy, Sybase/SAP losing customers, Microsoft losing customers, if I was a conspiratorial type........
The Louisiana pension fund and others want their money, so Ants may have an edge, I don't know. I realize it doesn't appear to make sense for Fletcher or the investors, but sometimes the mentality in these situations is to sell before it gets worse. I bet there's a "story" for every investment Fletcher made. I have my doubts about Ants getting those shares cheap. I hope I'm wrong.
And my opinion is that just because Doc stepped down does not mean that he stepped away.
Oh my.....If I can shed any light for Rik, we're all in deep trouble, LOL And definitely not an insider. I would love to see it proven that Fletcher or Ironridge manipulated the share price downward, but it just may be that there's nothing to prove. 300 mil is probably where it sits, but It'll be interesting to see how it's distributed. Less than 200 mil mentioned in one filing and then boom, the next thing we know it's referenced at 300 mil in another. Ironridge strikes me as one candidate for the ballooning, but I have big questions about that possibility. What I really, really, really want to hear about is the AAA. Get that in gear and I'm betting the 300 million won't be an issue.
It will take more than proving the slightest bit of wrongdoing. The company needed cash and Fletcher had a very good reputation on Wall Street, even considering that he sued his former employer for money owed because he performed too well. But that was a different time. My how the mighty have fallen. And yes, i'm aware of the Dakota stuff. The original terms of the Fletcher agreement looked pretty good. What happened next is the problem. There is a clause in the contract called the down round which basically protects the investor from corporate dilution. Now Ants was clearly starting to have issues about this time, but it could also have been Fletcher helping manipulate the price downward, while at the same time withholding cash they could have given the company from warrants, so when another entity came in with funds, Fletcher's original investment would be altered to reflect the new, lower funding price(the down round). And guess who that new entity was. BRG, a branch of Fletcher. I really think it's going into conspiratorial territory to think management was in cahoots with Fletcher though. Why would they do that? Most had substantial stock in the company. Why torpedo your own interests. From my limited point of view I think management just got too self interested towards the end. And the only proof of Joe as a crook that I know of was him withdrawing funds. Maybe he felt it was justified for salary. I don't know, but until I hear all the facts I will reserve judgement. What I do know is that he was the CEO when the decision to build and focus on the ACS was made. I just hope Frank was able to successfully negotiate buying Fletcher's shares.
I assume the demo you witnessed was during Joe's tenure. Were there any problems? Was it 100% efficient in this particular "translation" to the degree one can make a statement like that? Any knowledge of how SAP's purchase of Syase may have impacted Ants business strategy, since IBM and SAP are often business partners? As for shares canceled, I wouldn't hold out much hope, unless it was proven Fletcher or Ironridge manipulated the price downward for their benefit. Don't know about the Fletcher/BMG warrants, considering their bankruptcy. Depending on the VWAP in Ironridge's case, they may have added a large number of shares to the float, just hinges on how confident and aggressive they were. The share price slide in their case looks particularly suspicious, but it may just have been their aggressive selling combined with fear by investors. If you are aware of any reasons why some might be canceled I'd love to know about it. At one time a group was thinking about negotiating a private settlement with the institutions that held the delinquent exchange notes, but don't know if anything ever came of it. I don't know what your friends are worried about that's in the filings but I can all but guarantee the share structure won't be cut by 50%(probably 0% but hope I'm wrong) so if they are willing to buy below 10 cents later below 2 cents now strikes me as a phenomenal risk/reward ratio.
I don't know corporate law. What makes you think that if Galtech/Ants Tx buys out Ants that filings wouldn't need to be done. That doesn't sound right. What do you think is so toxic? Everything is pretty well known except how many shares Ironridge may have dumped into the stream(float) with their complicated formula, and what happened to the defaulted exchange notes due at the beginning of this year. And before you say it, if Fletcher had a new down round coming it already would have happened and would have shown up in the oversubscription check that Ants did.
T and I have had these discussions off message board. We both agree that one way or the other Doc will have a stake in the future growth of the company. Whether through partial ownership or licensing or something in between. I lean towards the former and he the latter.
" As far as I know, we still have the best and economical solution for data migration."
AlmostAs far as I know we have the ONLY solution anything like ours.
I should say, supposedly sold
There's only one sometimes basher on this board to take seriously and he knows who he is. The rest are laughable if you know the history of the company. Witness the guy that sold the other day. But that's good because most(all?) people can't short this, so the more bashers the more interested buyers there are. Don't misconstrue my questions about the company as turning sour on the same. I'm just very curious about how this will play out. The good doctor has invested countless hours of time and money in Ants let alone possibly saving it, and the shares he received for licensing will not cut it regarding compensation. Mark my words, he's not out of the picture. Sorry, but I care nothing about what the share price does in the near term. In other words I'm interested in the free flow of information and not cheerleading. I'm also invested for the long term as long as things look OK, or the price gets way ahead of itself(not technically, but fundamentally).
Nice rhetorical question
I'm guessing the current relationship with Galtech/Ants Tx. is a licensed one regarding any technology of Franks. And that could be worth a lot. Especially to a shell. Although I don't know if they(Galtech) have any carry forwards or cash(ha ha). At any rate if that relationship changed into one where they owned the tech. obviously that would be more valuable, hence Frank would have to be compensated.
"Why did Ants DE transfer certain IP assets to Ants TX? Why did Frank mention that Galtech was going to pursue strategic acquisitions? "
I forgot about that. When and what?
Maybe it is the same contract. In the Ants pr the contract is valued at 7 million, the Galtech has it at 5.7. Both say it's from a private firm. One says on behalf of a Fortune 500, the other, a Fortune 100. That may not be incompatible. I don't know. Ants describes the contract as for architectural and programming support whereas Galtech describes it as an advanced architectural, advanced technology contract. Kinda vague. The Ants pr does put them as subcontractor to the prime contractor.
Well if Franks 2 private ventures were involved with Ants Texas, soon to be a part of...,,hmmmm, what will the name be?, I believe they were involved from a licensing standpoint, not from an ownership point of view. From the Galtech pr.
"The potential additions to the contract involve several other Galtech IP products and licensing recently acquired. Galtech is also in preliminary negotiations with several successful and profitable privately held companies regarding acquisition as part of Galtech's business strategy."
At the moment my best guess is both sentences are talking about the same companies, RDI and ACSI. Just about anything that came from Ants Texas has to be related to his two companies. I believe Frank is attempting to build something formidable here, and how it involves our Ants remains to be seen. If I'm right about the 2 companies being looked at from an acquisition standpoint, and if that succeeds, Franks percentage of ownership in that entity will increase beyond the 52% figure.
I know it says potential additions, which begs the question of what the meat of the contract is. If you're right and our Ants is involved then it could be that we are the meat. Food for thought.
I don't see how you can say that RDI and ACSI are definitely part of this. The closest I can tie them in is from the September pr.
" Galtech Semiconductor Materials Corp. (Pink Sheets: GTSM), an Advanced Software Technology and Hardware Technology products company, announced today that it has received an advanced architectural, advanced technology, contract from a private firm, whose client is a FORTUNE 100 company, in the amount of $5.7MM. The potential additions to the contract involve several other Galtech IP products and licensing recently acquired. Galtech is also in preliminary negotiations with several successful and profitable privately held companies regarding acquisition as part of Galtech's business strategy."
The "several successful and profitable privately held companies" does ring a bell.
Hey, wasting time is what we do around here The current prospects may be vague but they're there. From the merger press release.
"The acquisition of ANTs Software Inc., a Texas Corporation, comprising numerous software intellectual properties and projects, positions Galtech in numerous competitive venues according to William Tunnell Board Member, SVP Mergers and Acquisitions. As part of this transaction, Dr. Frank N. Kautzmann, III was named a Director and elected Chairman, CEO and President of Galtech.
PR Newswire"
Frank isn't dumb, and doesn't do things for no reason. Something's going on.
I didn't know that. I was working from post #13196. Didn't look long enough to find that particular site, but found similar records that dated it to the 24th. Did you hear from Frank that it was a pre-existing company?
What, do they own a telluride mine? The following seems to have been their best shot at success.
"Using the proprietary methods from this effort and with the new equipment and analysis methods available today, we have reason to believe that we can develop a repeatable and economic process for the production of high quality material."
They claimed to have found a way to produce clean material for a certain class of semiconductors. And you're right. This has no bearing on the ACS at all. At least that I can see.
When the Galtech/Ants TX merger is complete whose name do you think it will bear.
Shame on me. I shouldn't try to invoke Murphy's Law like that
Does anyone think Frank was making things up, say....like Don Haderle examining the AAA and giving it his stamp of approval(and that's different than saying it works perfectly - we'll need real world test cases for that), or Fortune 500 companies expressing unsolicited interest in the AAA, or SAP and IBM Italy for that matter? Nor do I. That would be fraud and he would be caught. And don't try and tell me Don's in on the game. So why did he step down? I think it's safe to say he's not going to walk away from this financially(you know....follow the money), but how that plays out is anyone's guess. Somebody refresh my memory. Exactly what does Ants Texas have rights to. Does anyone know? I believe it was set up as an entity on May 24th by Dr Kautzmann. So clearly there is going to be a relationship of some sort. And what does Galtech bring to the picture? A publicly held shell? Is there a semiconductor expert on the board? Do you think the proprietary technology that Galtech has for manufacturing is potentially valuable? Maybe Doc can fix that LOL.
Granted, there's way too many questions without satisfactory answers here, but that's why the stock is trading in this range, and if you are a believer in the future and turn out to be right, this price is a gift. There are any number of possible reasons why he stepped down(not left). I doubt many think he's "retiring" per the press release. The "we" indicates otherwise, as does the existence of the other Ants in Texas. It didn't sound to many of us that he would do this, but maybe he needed to punt. Maybe things didn't go as planned(imagine that). It seems some on this board believe the Doc is a saint and will work for those shares he was given for licensing one of his products. If...IF he re-engineered the ACS to perform like we all think, the man single handedly saved Ants, and that's worth far more than his current compensation even assuming the stock went to 5 or 10 dollars. Maybe.... just maybe, Ants Texas will somehow be related to his compensation. Hint. How do you negotiate with yourself? I'm not suggesting anything underhanded here, and I still believe Frank wants to do right by the shareholders, but....he's going to make money, and IMHO, a lot. But who knows, maybe the pressure just got to him and for health reasons he had to step down I sure don't know.