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.
Great post and thanks; now the mystery of the hiring flier is available to all without the necessity of emailing me; this is the same photograph I received from the CEO; yes things are moving and I mean that literally. Petro.. amazing to me you were able to download and post the picture!
Parents
Any long investor can email me and i WILL SEND the photograph of NNLX'S HIRING FLIER. Many have already received the photograph.
Parents
Things are MOVING [literally] Ha Ha
Parents
Der Prediger - apparently there is an inherent limitation in the IHUB posting that prevents me from posting a screenshot of the slide show; however, if any member wishes to view the NNLX hiring photo, email me at parentsgratae@yahoo.com and I will forward the photograph of the flier to you. It was simple to take a screenshot and send it to my email box. Thank you
Parents
Der Prediger; I will ask my engineer husband to assist; actually I am not even sure it is PDF, it simply said sideshow and it is a photograph; if I can get it here I will; I have been posting here for years and I know you all know I do not misrepresent!!
Parents
The photo of the flier was sent in a PDF file which I have no means to copy/paste, but this is a partial transcription of the flier:
Immediate Job Opening
Company: NanoLogix, Inc.
Location: Hubbard, Ohio
Position{s} to be filled: Biotech Production/Manufacturing Personnel
- producing filled Petri plates with assorted media in a cleanroom environment
- $11.00 Per hour
[ in addition, the filer discussed shifts /training and method of applying - shifts were Monday-Friday and weekends]
Parents
Yes, the company just sent me a photograph of the hiring ads posted in the University. NEOhioinvestor's post is accurate.
Parents
Shortly, I plan on downloading the federal file regarding NNLX and will have a much more defined understanding of the dynamics of this lawsuit. Apparently, this lawsuit is in response to Mr. Novak's suit in California leading me to believe that the contract Mr. Novak is suing upon [as posted by rail] specified Ohio as the mandatory forum for any dispute. Otherwise, NNLX would answer in California, not filing in Ohio. The hard and fast rule that Mr. Novak may not have followed is : before you sue on a contract, you should read the contract, so I am puzzled as to why Mr. Novak did not come to Ohio.
Give me a week; part of my family is relocating to Switzerland and I am BUSY for the next 8 days. Hopefully Mr. Novak will answer in Ohio, and I will access his answer in addition to NNLX's complaint. Then I will have a more complete understanding. Of course, I do not believe Mr. Novak's suit has any merit at all. My view.
Parents
moderators note to the board: if your post is deleted, look in your mailbox and click on the box that says "my removed posts" and you will know who removed your post and why; then refashion your posts within the rules and repost; let us all stay within the rules. I addressed this issue because of questions I have received. This post is on topic for proper posting regarding NNLX.
Parents, moderator
I believe your suggestion is inapplicable because there was a fundamental change of management in 2007 when Bret became CEO of the company and rescued the company from a disastrous plan to split the company and strip NNLX from all its patents. The energy from grape juice plan under Felder never panned out. The pump and dump scheme that some entity unknown to management and repudiated by management had nothing to do with company strategy or operations. NNLX's technological development was in its infant stage, so the only point I could see from your suggestion is to view the PROGRESS of the company from its beginnings [March 2007] to its new revenue stream of operations. This is a forum of free and open discussion but I do not believe or agree with any post you have made thus far. We do have entirely different viewpoints.
Parents
machiavelli...thank you for yet another excellent analysis. Your postings are always superior!
Parents
riksha....I am not privy to the details of the licensing agreement and therefore should not comment; I just know Bret is a heavy financial supporter of the company as well as being its CEO; he has loaned the company money for ongoing operations and, as stated in the year-end summary, everyone there on the BOD are really volunteers because they believe in the technology potential and the humanitarian blessing. Our products will save lives. This I know - the invention makes NNLX'S products superior to any petri-dish company, thus putting us in a superior position to market and sell the products. Breakage loss for the ordinary petri dish is high; ours have almost no breakage at all, has a far longer shelf life and, in addition, requires no refrigeration....a great advantage. Consequently, we have a READY income stream from the increasing sale of petri dishes as we continue to develop and market our other technology. So I am grateful, so grateful that Bret Barnhizer is our CEO.
Parents
Great find Rail....At last we are gaining some notice in the investment community.
Parents
AGAIN your cases/links are not applicable because they assume the company PAID the patent costs; none of your links address the issue as to when an officer who has NO CONTRACT obligation to assign inventions, PAYS FOR ALL PATENT COSTS. And that is where you are gravely mistaken in my view.
In fact, you cannot find such a case; it is not the law in my opinion. Cite me ONE CASE, instead of what lawyers refer to as boiler plate language on a legal link that does not and cannot address the operational issues in this case.
Parents
One more point; yes a fiduciary duty may be applicable because your links assume the company paid for the expenses related to the patent; in this case, this does not apply and, therefore, the CEO is the sole owner of the patent. What all of the links do not consider is WHO PAID FOR THE PATENT COSTS; the links are assuming the company funded and therefore owns the patent by the officer.
Parents
Thank you for your post and it establishes what I previously stated: there is no cause of action because every fiduciary duty has been satisfied and the invention is advantageous to the company without which the company will not thrive. There is a Harvard lawyer on the BOD and I am sure he approved the actions of the CEO. My view. machiavelli's research is the definitive law:
"When you create an invention while employed, who owns the right to acquire a patent: you or your employer? The general rule is that you own the patent rights to the invention unless:
you signed an employment agreement assigning invention rights, or you were specifically hired (even without a written agreement) for your inventing skills or to create the invention."
AND,
"At a minimum, three general common law principles apply:
1. If an employee is not hired specifically for the purpose of inventing anything, then whatever he or she may invent during the course of employment will be owned by the employee. No implicit agreement to assign any patent to the employer arises. This general rule applies even if the invention is related to the employer’s business.
2. When an employee is hired to invent, but the employer has no more in mind than a desired result and does not give the employee instructions as to the means the employee must use to accomplish the particular result, then any resulting invention, even if related to the employer’s business, will again be owned by the employee.
3. If an employee is hired to create a specific invention and the employer can demonstrate that the means to bringing the idea into practical form were clearly spelled out for the employee, the employer will be deemed the owner of the invention where the invention is within the scope of the inventor’s employment and relates to the employer’s business."
Parents
As a retired attorney, I presented my assessment; if you disagree, that is fine with me.
Parents
Do not be concerned; there is no case. In the company are excellent lawyers/consultants. You should be, instead, grateful we have a CEO who invented something that puts NNLX in a superior position without which, NNLX would not thrive as it will because of the invention.
Parents
Agree and thanks...
Parents
Actually rlksha...I can envision one scenario in which the court could compel assignment...that is if the company paid for all the costs related to the patent...Yes, then, the court could compel the assignment; in this case, NNLX did not fund any costs relating to the patent and therefore there is no actionable case.
Parents
Bret was never hired to invent anything and you failed to explain how he is taking money out of NNLX when his invention puts NNLX in a SUPERIOR position to take over the petri-dish market. I am amazed at your reasoning.
Parents
machiavelli has the correct answer!
Parents
Agree machiavelli and your answer is superior! Thanks
Parents
I do not believe this and, even if so, Bret has no duty to assign his invention to NNLX - the requirement to assign his inventions is not in his contract; I know a lot about fiduciary duty, and it is truly bizarre that any court would compel assignment of an invention by the CEO based on fiduciary duty; I would have to see the court record and read the judgment to believe that line. The Officer at issue should immediately APPEAL the decision because it is in error. State courts do make mistakes; I once served as a clerk in a Texas Court of Appeals and assisted Judges in REVERSING mistakes made in the lower courts.
Parents
I appreciate your note of "thanks". Have a blessed day!
Parents
I believe the year-end summary made this crystal clear; the patent in the USPTO states Bret as the inventor/owner of the patent. The license agreement is explained in the summary; so obviously Bret licensed the technology to the company. It is crystal clear to me and should be to all investors doing DD. This fact would encourage me to be an investor in NNLX. It is all good news that our CEO, like the late Steve Jobs, is truly exceptional.
Parents
Yes I have leroy; now listen: Bret is the owner of that patent and it is his invention. The packaging license gives NNLX superiority over all other petri-dish manufacturers. This will enable NNLX to capture a large percentage of the petri-dish market as well as its usefulness for other NNLX products.
The bottom line is that Bret must be our CEO like Steve Jobs was essential to Apple's development. Without Bret, NNLX will not have the packaging license. It is essential that he remain as CEO and, how wonderful that he possesses an inventive, creative mind. I am confident that Bret will devise other innovations that our company will use and be blessed by.
Parents
Have you forgotten the late Steve Jobs CEO and co-founder of Apple?
He was an engineer, inventor with amazing technical expertise. You underestimate our CEO in my view.
You are mistaken Abig; this type of clause usually applies to employees of the company not the CEO. Because it is evident that Bret licensed the packaging technology to NNLX, he owns it and, thus he is an invaluable asset to the company; apparently his contract with NNLX when he assumed this position did not have "the NNLX owns it clause" because it was not anticipated that Bret would be an inventor as well as the CEO of the company; this makes sense because I do not believe Felder had that in his contract. My opinion only.
Parents
Bret is careful not to hype until the reality presents itself; a mark of integrity; he is not perfect and has missed projections several times and thus is more cautious.
Parents
Bret is the inventor of the packaging patent; if you had read the patent from the USPTO you would have known. One of the myriad of reasons and achievements that mark Bret as an exceptional CEO
Parents
"Increasing sales" is a key operational phrase in the report as well as information regarding entities/project we are supplying. The technological developments detailed in the report are truly amazing. And the information regarding compensation of the BOD and NNLX funding gives much insight into how NNLX has survived and thrived during its developmental phase. The patent information is positive. I believe the report gives assurance as to the future growth and development of this company. This is my take. We should be grateful our CEO is a man of business, integrity, inventiveness, and one that has the shareholders' interest in view.
Parents
Rail...what an excellent post!!!! However, I do not believe any person was taking shots at John Tracy; my point is that his status is determined by his boss and its none of my or anyone's business. This is not intended to be a shot at him.
Parents
If I am mistaken I will give you a personal apology, but I do not believe I am mistaken regarding the 2 dollar pps. We are planing on traveling and my husband has learned Italian for the trip. That is how confident we are. Things will rapidly change for the better; this has been an amazing company and as rail splitter has challenged investors to name one other pink sheet company with our achievements and associations and verifications and revolutionary technology. Not one poster could come up with one, not even one among the 6 thousand or so pink sheet companies
Parents.
My post was in response to another who is beating the dead horse; but you have a short memory regarding the amazing achievements of our CEO - his packaging patent;associations with large and prestigious institutions; and the innovation regarding more rapid tests technologies than we first imagined and publishing of verification papers etc. etc. Do you just want a quick buck?
Biotech is a marathon not a sprint as the old saying goes. The message boards have demonstrated hostility toward the company which I imagine give the CEO and BOD pause in selecting the information to be released. Corporate games can be ruthless and I would not show my hand if involved in that scenario. Would you? And it is true that the pps will catch up to the intrinsic value of the company as sales increase; so I am not worried about the present price per share.
Parents
Regardless of his stellar resume, you do not know how he is working in the dynamics of the company; my point being that a sterling resume does not necessarily mean he is productive in his position with NNLX - and that decision can only be evaluated by his boss. I do not know him and have no further opinion to state.
Parents
I do not believe you are in a position to evaluate John Tracy unless you are his boss or close working associate; I do not care a whittle whether he stays or leaves - that is a decision that is none of my business.
Parents
Abig I found it under "Quality Documents" Thanks
Parents
Abig, where did you find this on the website? Thanks
Parents
So the policy of listing employees changed; a wise decision in my view.
Parents