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.
New on OTCmarkets.com today:
<Supplemental Information>
Part A General Company Information
Item 1 - The exact name of the issuer and its predecessor (if any).
EP GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Item 2 - The address of the issuer’s principal executive offices.
EP Global Communications, Inc.
1582 Deere Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
Ph. 877-287-6175
Email Addresses:
information@epglmed.com
physicians@epglmed.com
investors@epglmed.com
Investor Relations & Public Relations Contact:
Mr. Brady Peterson
Email: investors@epglmed.com
Twitter:
@EPGLMed
Web:
www.EPGLMed.com
SECURITY INFORMATION
Ticker Symbol: EPGL
CUSIP# 268811205
ISIN# US2688112059
Common Stock, Par Value .0001, 5 Billion Shares Authorized, Outstanding Shares 4 Billion, 668 Million Shares, One Vote Per Share.
As of June 30, 2015
5 Billion Authorized Common
4,668,229,167 Outstanding
4,169,068,000 Restricted
499,161,167 Freely trading
Total number of beneficial shareholders is 2
Total number of shareholders of record 700 approximate
The name and address of the transfer agent:
Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company
17 Battery Place 8th Floor
New York, NY 10004
212-509-4000
Registered Under the Exchange Act
Regulatory Authority: SEC, NYSE
ISSUANCE HISTORY
On July 27, 2012 a 10:1 Reverse Split was Affected as part of a major reorganization of the Company into a new medical device maker. The result of this action reduced outstanding shares issued from 4,991,611,670 (Billion) to 499,161,167 (Million) outstanding common shares. New common shares were issued to the following beneficial holders:
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Corporate Finance and Recovery (Cayman) Controlling Agent for:
AJW Qualified Partners, LLC, Ltd.
1.975 Billion Common Shares
Received Shares As Per Terms of Restructuring Agreement with Right to Additional 250mm Common Shares.
Mr. Michael Hayes
1.975 Billion Common Shares Preferred Stock, Par Value .001, Class A, 5 Million Shares Authorized, 4.5 million Outstanding (190:1 Convertible to Voting Rights Equivalents of Common Shares) Preferred Stock, Par Value 1.00 Class B, 5 Million Shares Authorized, 302 Outstanding (277:1 Convertible to Voting Rights Equivalents of Common Shares)
Received Shares As Per Terms of Restructuring Agreement with Right to Additional 250mm Common Shares.
DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS PRODUCTS & SERVICES
EP Global Communications, Inc., is a research and development company with focus on medical device design, ophthalmic medical device design, consumer electronic device design and device technologies in the IoT space. In 2014, all EPGL technologies and Intellectual property were selected and put under Development Agreement by CooperVision, Inc., a leading medical device manufacturer, for development and marketing. The EPGL team is now securing Intellectual Properties and co-developing a family of advanced devices as a result. This Development Agreement was publicly disclosed on August 29, 2014. In addition, EPGL has entered an initial Agreement with Intel Corporation. EPGL has also entered into Agreements with AT&T as of January 2015. EPGL and AT&T have created joint Intellectual Properties and are now in the process of procuring those properties.
EPGL Medical is the result of a reorganization which culminated in July 2012. With a strong team of medical and scientific professionals, the Company is poised to capture market share with innovative “smart medical and consumer electronic devices” technologies including those that require advanced microelectronic mechanical systems (MEMS). The Company philosophy is that healthcare is going to become an increasingly challenging environment for both physicians and patients. A coming boom in patients simultatneous to a possible shortage of physicians will necessitate intuitive medical devices which can be used by a broader variety of doctors. In short, new “smart medical devices” advanced research and design intellectual properties will be needed more than ever. EPGL Medical has the know-how to develop technologies which fit this coming new healthcare environment and enable industry leaders to capture market share with those advanced technologies.
EP Global Communications, Inc. dba EPGL Medical, is a Delaware Corporation first incorporated November 17, 1999.
SIC Code 3841 - Surgical and medical instruments, Development Stage Company
FISCAL YEAR END DATE IS: JUNE 30
The Company has significant know-how and Intellectual Property in the arena of BioMEMS. The Company has invented new device technologies which include, but are not limited to the following:
Advanced Technologies for Contact Lenses
Advanced Cell Regeneration Technology to Treat Eye Disease
Advanced Cell Regeneration Technology to Treat Hearing Loss
Advanced Nerve Ablation Device
Advanced Epidural Device
Advanced Trigger Point Needle Device
Advanced Micron Resolution Motor for Smart Medical Devices
Advanced Platform Technology for Development of Smart Medical devices
Real-Time Sensor Technologies for Connectivity to a Global Network
Real-Time Data Applications for Athletic Teams, Workforces and Military Forces.
The company has brought on-board a Team of Medical and Engineering professionals which are highly accomplished in their respective fields:
David T. Markus Ph.D.
Company Vice President - BioMems Development
David T. Markus holds a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering and a MS in Electrical Engineering with an emphasis in MEMS Microelectronics and Biomedical. Dr. Markus spent 11 years with Raytheon and holds 8 US patents and has 9 other US Patents Pending. He has been involved in research for several of the world's leading technological institutions, including the Office of Naval Research in Arlington, Virginia, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA and he has been published 15 times for various technical conferences. He was a principal investigator on SBIR DARPA Phase I and Phase II, and "Ultraflexible Substrate" for Macroelectronics Program by Dr. Robert Reuss at DARPA. He has been involved in the engineering and the development on seven surgical devices, including devices for Cataract surgery, Intra-Ocular Lens Delivery, Arthroscopy, Endodontic Endoscope, Micro Endoscope and Neural Electrodes. Additionally he was instrumental on developing three medical laboratory devices, including for In-Vitro Fertilization, PCR instrumentation and drug discovery. Finally, Dr. Markus is fluent in English, Chinese-Madarin, Taiwanese-FuJian and Indonesian languages. A full bio for Dr. Markus will be made available on the Company website in the near future.
Company Medical Director - Corey W. Hunter M.D.
Corey W. Hunter, MD is based in New York City. He completed his residency in physical medicine and rehabilitation at NYU Langone Medical Center and a fellowship in pain medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. Dr. Hunter's specialties include pain diagnosis and treatment, disorders of the spine and peripheral nervous system, with a special interest in advanced interventional techniques and minimally invasive spinal procedures. Dr. Hunter was pivotal in conducting early research on the MPDD device. Along with NYU physicians, Michel Dubois M.D. and Shengping Zou M.D., Dr. Hunter headed the team which published one of the first research studies showing significant improvement for the detection of pain caused by muscles,
using the MPDD device versus traditional manual pressure (MP) for the diagnosis and treatment Myofascial Pain Syndrome which can include chronic back pain, neck pain, migraine, fybromyalgia and more. These findings greatly contributed to the early progress of the MPDD development and its subsequent FDA 510k clearance and patent awards.
Eric Lee M.D.M.A.
Eric Lee M.D. M.A. graduated from Yale University and completed medical school at Boston University. He completed his residency in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at NYU Langone Medical Center where he has continued with a Pain Medicine fellowship. Dr. Lee is intimately familiar with the MPDD device and used it as a diagnostic tool in a study of using advanced techniques to treat myofascial pain along with Dr. Michel Dubois MD at NYU. Dr. Lee's professional interests include pain diagnosis and treatment, disorders of the spine, central, and peripheral nervous system, with a special interest in advanced interventional techniques and minimally invasive spinal procedures. Dr. Lee will oversee further additions to the EPGL Medical management team and advancement of new medical devices technologies the Company has interest in pursuing.
Ryan M. Stellar M.E. B.E.
EPGL is proud to have Ryan M. Stellar M.E. B.E. as part of the team. Mr. Stellar is a highly accomplished biomedical engineer who was intimately involved with the creation of the MPDD device as the Chief Engineer during its creation at Stevens Proof of Concept (SPOC). Mr. Stellar graduated from Stevens Institute of Technology in 2006 with a degree in Biomedical Engineering and a Minor in Economics. Mr. Stellar has been with Medtronic, Inc. for six years prior to leaving this year. While at Medtronic, among many other accomplishments, he successfully directed global launches of two portfolio critical products in the cardiac rhythm device market: DF4 Lead Connector System & CareLink Network for Heart Failure. Mr. Stellar is an expert in medical device manufacturing resources and distribution channels as well as customer relationship management.
Vice President of Emergency Medicine Innovations
Noah T. Kaufman, M.D.
Noah T. Kaufman, M.D. as Vice President of Emergency Medicine Innovations and candidate for Board of Directors. Dr. Kaufman will add valuable energy and insight from the perspective of emergency medicine, which is a significant market for EPGL moving into the future. He is a highly accomplished physician in his field. As Director of Clinical Emergency Ultrasound, Dr. Kaufman is in the top ranks for patient scores and outcomes. Dr. Kaufman is also currently the attending Emergency Physician for Barton Memorial Hospital ER and the Carson Valley Medical Center ER at South Lake Tahoe, California. His education includes Akron General Medical Center, Akron, OH - EM Residency 2006. Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA - MD 2003, and University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL - BS 1996
Company President & CEO - Michael Hayes
Michael Hayes was President of Digital Health Sciences, Inc. prior to that Company being acquired by EPGL in July 2012. Mr. Hayes has presided over the debt restructuring of EP Global Communications, Inc. along with Pricewaterhouse Coopers since early 2012. Mr. Hayes is now in charge of assembling a new management team for EPGL, including all Company management, medical and scientific personnel going forward. Mr. Hayes has made it a singular priority to bring aboard only the world’s top professionals in the field of medical sciences to EPGL and thereby build the Company into a major player in the medical device industry over the next several years. Mr. Hayes has also committed to prioritizing shareholders and creating significant value for their investments over time.
IR/PR Manager Mr. Brady Peterson
Brady Peterson was recently named Manager of Investor Relations and Public Relations as well as Information Technologies for EPGL Med. Mr. Peterson is the consummate professional who brings 15 years of Customer Relations and marketing experience to EPGL. The EPGL team is pleased to have him aboard and we believe customers and investors alike will appreciate his professionalism.
ISSUERS FACILITIES
The Company leases or utilizes facilities in the following locations
Various California Bay Area Research Facilities Under NDA, David T. Markus, Ph.D. Irvine, California – Research Facilities, Office
NYU Langone Medical Center, Corey W. Hunter M.D. / Eric Lee M.D.
University of Minnesota, David T. Markus, Ph.D.
University of California at Irvine, David T. Markus, Ph.D.
Dallas and Plano Texas, David T. Markus, Ph.D.
OFFICERS, DIRECTORS and CONTROL PERSONS
The name of the chief executive officer, members of the board of directors, as well as control persons.
President, CEO and Director Michael Hayes
Private Investor, Corporate Restructure Specialist.
Will hold Board Membership and will assign 3 other Board Members
Pricewaterhouse Coopers will appoint 3 additional Board Members on behalf of AJW Qualified Partners.
Company is compensating both parties via 2.25 billion shares each, as disclosed previously.
Disciplinary History of Officers, Directors and Control Persons
None
Beneficial Shareholders
AJW Qualified Partners, LLC,
1.975 Billion Common Shares
Controlling Agent is Pricewaterhouse Coopers , Corporate Finance and Recovery (Cayman) Ltd. 5th Floor Strathvale House, P.O. Box 258 Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, KY1 1104
Michael Hayes
1.975 Billion Common Shares
Preferred Stock, Par Value .001, Class A, 5 Million Shares Authorized, 4.5 million Outstanding (190:1 Convertible to Voting Rights Equivalents of Common Shares) Preferred Stock, Par Value 1.00 Class B, 5 Million Shares Authorized, 302 Outstanding (277:1 Convertible to Voting Rights Equivalents of Common Shares)
1582 Deere Avenue
Irvine, CA 92606
THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS
Matthew Ladin, Esq.
829 De La Vina Street, Suite 200
Santa Barbara, California 93101
805-698-3075
ITEM 10 ISSUER CERTIFICATION
I, Michael Hayes, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this initial quarterly disclosure statement of EP Global Communications, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this disclosure statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this disclosure statement; and
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included or incorporated by reference in this disclosure
statement, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this disclosure statement.
6-30-2015
/s/ Michael Hayes
Michael Hayes
President and CEO
Safe Harbor Statement
Certain matters discussed in this report are "forward-looking statements" intended to
qualify for the safe harbors from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. In particular, the Company's statements regarding trends in the
marketplace and potential future results are examples of such forward-looking
statements. The forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties, including,
but not limited to, the timing of projects due to the variability in size, scope and
duration
of projects, estimates made by management with respect to the Company's critical
accounting policies, regulatory delays, clinical study results which lead to reductions or
cancellations of projects, and other factors, including general economic conditions and
regulatory developments, not within the Company's control. The factors discussed
herein and expressed from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission could cause actual results and developments to be materially
different from those expressed in or implied by such statements. The forward-looking
statements are made only as of the date of this press release and the Company
undertakes no obligation to publicly update such forward-looking statements to reflect
subsequent events or circumstances.
Thank you (and jason) for your replies - respectable/helpful. From these and other posts, I feel that your comments are real and honest, and I appreciate your willingness to comment and share. GLTY
With this news to confirm what had been laid out previously and showing all goals on target, exceeding several targets/milestones in fact, is there any reason the market cap wouldn't increase by 10x between now and, say Feb/March 2016?
With recent inroads and continued growth, shouldn't there be increased value between now and then, as well? Toward 15-20x PPS by next summer?
I'm interested to hear comments, looking to buy in today unless I'm really missing something.
Haha, I was checking out this company and came across your post.
That's a pretty impressive resume, thanks for a good start on DD, this definitely piques my interest.
The stock sure looks undervalued to me, and the management seems to be right on top of things. Looks like they've been keeping investors in lockstep with they're business plan, strategy and progress on milestones, too! At least, since January when they informed investors of the significant progress of then-recent transformation efforts and the plan and outlook for the next year+.
No one is arguing whether or not EPGL could have 1, 5 or even 20 (patent apps) worth billions.
But yes, it is easily conceivable that EPGL's market cap could exceed 1, 5 or even 20 $Billion in the very near future.
Don't believe what you read from me or my opinion, though. Do your own DD. There are plenty of good links on this board and in recent posts, as well as otcmarkets.com.
Stock PPS is a reflection of the market's perception of future value - based on all any/factors. Most significantly, this includes future potential for profit. Most significantly, high-profit-margin revenue from IP sales and royalties are at the top of the scale for future value, even higher than the kind of value generated by software - what propelled Microsoft and Bill Gates to the top ranks in the world for market cap and wealth. There's no cost of goods sold, no warranty liability, no technical support overhead, no software developers required to rapidly develop the next revision.
This IBM thing that someone started is like comparing apples and... pig knuckles.
However, this technology could easily lead to future value of AT LEAST one of EPGL's patent apps being higher than the value of the best, most profitable patent in IBM's portfolio.
Aside from that...
IBM commands a market cap of $142B. That $1B of high-profit-margin IP licensing/royalties income contributes multiple $Billions to that market cap.
Much of the rest of the $142B market is contributed to by the great majority of patents and other IP that IBM does NOT license or sell. But as one poster stated, even with the large majority of patents and other IP that IBM does not license or sell, only a small number of these actually contribute significantly to revenue, if used at all.
As with all things like this in business and nature, if IBM were to allow anyone to see, you can bet a Pareto chart would show that only a small handful of the IP assets contribute the great majority of the income. Like the 80-20 rule, or the same way the top 20% of income earners pay 84% of the income tax collected in the U.S., for example. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384).
Thanks Viking & Squeejo. Thank you for your contributions, as well. I'm not an IP expert, as I stated once before. I have some knowledge and experience with IP (patents, trademarks and such). Just doing what I can to clear up misunderstanding and misinformation when it's obvious to me, but maybe not so much to some board members - many of whom appear to be reaching out for clarification from time to time.
It's right there in black and white. "I" am not discounting anything. Their claims clearly state "the invention" and Claim 7 in particular spells out exactly what "sensor" is and what "esensor" is. "esensor" is where they refer to the electromyography sensor of their invention.
Novartis wasn't "granted" a claim or anything. In fact, the Written Opinion eliminates many of the claims for "not Novel" and it rejects ALL claims for "not Inventive." This Written Opinion was published in May and Novartis has not yet responded.
Chances are that Novartis will eventually abandon their application, as it is clear they are interested in what EPGL has to offer, and it appears that they have a lot of hurdles to overcome since 14 claims were rejected for "not Inventive". I only suggest this because I expect that Novartis has sufficient intellect to give it "their best shot" the first time around and, if all claims are rejected for "not Inventive," perhaps the use of electromyography sensors to sense muscle movement are not unique.
My experience with sensors of various types also leads me to believe that sensing small electric fields in the eye could be a whole lot more difficult to achieve in practice than the relatively straightforward - though clever and, hopefully "Novel" and "Inventive" - piezoelectric transducer method. I say this because it seems like the energy in the electric field that would have to be physically decoupled from the eye (no electrodes penetrating the eye, please) would be one or more orders of magnitude (factors of 10) smaller than what can be produced by a piezo transducer (by design, physically decoupled from the eye) that will output a signal that can be "directly" measured.
It's entirely possible that, as unique as it may seem to use electromyography to measure eye movement, it may not be Novel and Inventive enough for a patent grant. As seen in the WIPO Written Opinion, Claims 1, 2 and 5 "lack novelty." Having the first claim - usually the central and most valuable - rejected for "lacking novelty" is kindof a bad sign. The Opinion goes on to state that all of the claims "lack an Inventive step," generally under PCT Article 33(3) as being obvious over (prior art).
Novartis states in the Detailed Description of the invention that:
"One sensing technique that has been relatively successful in muscle activity is the use of electromyography. Electromyography is a technique in which the electric field pattern surrounding the muscle is measure over time (such as by electric potential measurements) to determine the degree of muscle contraction."
If their invention lacks novelty or is obvious, I guess I can see how that might be. The ciliary is just another muscle and, if electromyography is being used and claimed under other patents for measuring muscle movement, then just the use of this technique for the eye as opposed to how it is claimed under other patents could be... obvious.
I just hope that EPGL's invention passes the unique and non-obvious (Novel and Inventive) test. I think there's a pretty good chance of this because, in comparison to the electromyography method as a point of reference:
1. The electromyography sensing method seems like a useful and generally-universal solution for muscles anywhere on the body and so it seems more likely - especially considering Novartis statement (above) - that there has been a good bit of prior art; and
2. Generally speaking, for many areas of the human body where you may want to measure muscle contraction for some purpose, you can access the tissue directly and also many cases would not seem to require sensing movement over very minute ranges as the eye muscle (ciliary)... and so it may be entirely unique and non-obvious to use a more-or-less phsysically-decoupled piezo sensor to sense muscle movement.
In any case, there is a reason that Novartis and others have come to EPGL for discussions, not to mention the much deeper relationship that is already established between EPGL and COO, as well as Intel and AT&T. This patent application is just one of many, with the piezo energy harvester and the smart contact case being among the rest!
Well, actually not in this case. The use(s) of the word "sensor" that you refer to is for a different type sensor that is included in Novartis' invention - not the "key" sensor of the invention (no matter whether you're talking about Novartis' invention or comparing it to the EPGL invention).
It should be more clear/obvious, but Novartis made an error in their application. It becomes obvious if you look at the WIPO Written Opinion document in response to Novartis' application.
Page 4 of the Written Opinion document dated 12/12/2013:
The following defects in the form or contents of the international application have been noted:
Claim 7 is objected to under PCT Rule 66.2(a)(iii) as containing the following defect in the form or contents therof: claim 7 contains a typographical error in the term "the esensor". For the purposes of this Written Opinion, the assumption has been made that the term in claim 7 is "the sensor".
If you refer to Claim 7 of the application (below), you can see that what's happened here is the Novartis application reviewer missed a spot where they needed to replace the shorthand "esensor" with "electromyography sensor". And then the WIPO reviewer made a general first-pass assumption that Novartis probably meant "sensor".
But the other uses of the word "sensor" are actually referring to different device (one or more) that, yes, can be virtually any type of sensor that can be "configured to detect a predetermined manual trigger for an electro-active optical element". But that has no significant bearing on the invention - those sensors are NOT the piezoelectric (EPGL) or electromyography (Novartis) sensors that define the core of the invention by sensing the ciliary muscle movement.
Here's Claim 7, for handy reference:
7. An electro-active opthalmic lens, comprising:
- at least one sensor configured to detect a predetermined manual trigger for an electro-active optical element;
- a processor coupled to the sensor operable to receive the signal from the esensor and to determine, based on the sensor signal, an adjustment to optical power for the electro-active optical element and to generate a control signal for the electro-active optical element; and
- the electro-active optical element coupled to the processor to operable to receive the control signal...
To answer your question - if you are really hoping for a clear answer - one need only notice the title of the invention and then you can verify by looking at each and every section of the patent app that supports it: yes, you should be able to pretty-much substitute "piezoelectric sensor" for "electromyography sensor."
This app is for a "Piezoelectric Sensor for Vision Correction."
Novartis' app is for an invention using "(electromyography) Sensors for Triggering Electro-Active Opthalmic Lenses."
The piezoelectric method uses a piezoelectric transducer to sense movement (of the ciliary muscle) in the eye. The electromyography method measures changes in the electric field pattern to sense movement (of the ciliary muscle) in the eye.
Two different inventions, period.
Franck,
To answer your question – you should first be clear that the "utility," as you put it, has been filed from the outset. This patent application, by nature, is a "utility" patent application, as it falls into the "utility" patent classification. This, in contrast to a "design" patent application, which is a whole different animal, and which generally applies to the industrial design and visual appearance of a device. There are other classifications, so this is a simplification. But it should be sufficient to clarify the situation, where others who claim to "know" the "facts" and who indicate they want only to "educate" do not seem to know the facts clearly enough to get the terminology correct… which can make all of this seem more complex than it actually is – and more confusing than it needs to be.
The answer to your question can be found on the International Publication Number WO 2015/123616 A1 under "Priority Data." Here, you can see that the provisional patent application 61/939,736 was formally received/filed by the USPTO on Feb 13, 2014. The "61" prefix* indicates that it is a provisional app, and the date of 13 February 2014 under the heading "Priority Data" indicates that it was formally received/filed by the USPTO on that date, and therefore it is given a priority date of 13 February 2014 (meaning that the invention is on record to the benefit of the inventors for that date over any other invention / patent app that is filed after that date).
The provisional application is good for one year from the filing date (Feb 13, 2014). A non-provisional patent application must be filed within one year – by Feb 13, 2015 – or the applicant loses the benefit of the priority date given at the time of filing of the provisional app: Feb 13, 2014.
On the same WIPO document, you can see that the non-provisional patent app was indeed filed so as to maintain the first priority date. Under "Priority Data," you can see that the non-provisional app 14/622,814 was formally received/filed by the USPTO on Feb 13, 2015 – exactly 1 year after the provisional patent app filing. The "14" prefix* indicates that it is a non-provisional app, and the date of 13 February 2015 under the "Priority Data" heading indicates that it was formally received/filed by the USPTO on that date.
So to summarize, the answer to your question is that the non-provisional patent application has already been filed – on Feb 13, 2015.
* http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/filingyr.htm
If you're thanking me... you're welcome.
I know "enough to be dangerous." I do have a provisional app to compose and submit this weekend before I ship some early models of a new product next week.
Full disclosure - I don't claim to know a lot, and I wear many hats and have many irons in the fire. So my knowledge of these things, though broad, is sparse. I've dealt with patents, patent apps, trademarks and maintenance on these things off and on for 20-some years, but very sporadically. Most of my "knowledge" and experience is stored away in documents and reference directories on my hard drive, and I just dig up what I need whenever I have a task to accomplish.
I am president and part owner of a small tech consumer products business, so I often read up on recent business, planning and strategy publications, and I develop and execute our strategic plans with the help of various but limited resources that I have at my disposal at a given time.
I don't have a whole lot more to offer on this subject at this time, but maybe just one more thing that is kindof like common sense... though it may not occur to folks that are not in the same "frame of mind" as myself.
background...
I am fairly new to EPGL, but I understand that the business "transformed" from magazine publisher or distributor into a technology company, and then "evolved" from tech productdev/mfgr/sales business into an R & D business. The first part is what created the foundation for this 'fantastic' opportunity (for common stock holders) but it's the second part - where EPGL's intellectual capital is being leveraged, further developed, and leveraged again - that is most interesting to me.
The term "intellectual capital" may be new to many people, but think of it this way: Intellectual Capital includes IP (Intellectual Property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets), but also includes the less tangible things like knowledge, experience and expertise of EPGL employees, officers and directors and business/industry relationships.
EPGL decided it was best to evolve from maker and seller of products to an R&D business so that they could most effectively leverage their intellectual capital (to deliver the most value/ROI to shareholders). That decision in and of itself is a reflection of some of this intellectual capital.
Patents are one good way to secure and protect certain intellectual capital, turning it into intellectual "property."
Patent grants (patents are "granted" by the governing body to the inventor) are little more than an agreement between governing bodies and the "inventor" of something.... to give the inventor a temporary monopolistic advantage in the marketplace. For the U.S. (and generally any country that patent protection is granted): "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” (or importing).
When filing a patent application, the inventor must disclose exactly what the invention is, and also exactly how to make the invention such that anyone skilled in the field of the invention could in fact produce it.
There is a very real and significant value in the confidentiality or secrecy of non-published patent applications. For example, the sooner a competitor knows the details of your patent application (even just a date):
- the sooner they can begin working around it with a different approach if they do not want to pay you royalties
- the sooner they can begin working on improvements to the invention; this can be the most important and successful phase of the inventing/development process (and if there are ANY flaws or disadvantages to the original invention that would be greatly improved upon by their "improvement patent/invention," you quickly become disadvantaged and limited in your ability to monetize your IP & IC)
- the sooner/easier it becomes for them to sign deals will partners or customers to commercialize a competing alternative invention, regardless of how inferior it may be - if they consider it a better alternative than to pay you royalties. You can then be subject to their first-to-market advantage and related strategic and tactical maneuvers.
To state the obvious, the less the competition knows, the more their uncertainty. Uncertainty in the competition's camp is a huge benefit to the advantage of the non-published patent applicant. Note that this can also be a very effective negotiating tool.
the 'one more thing'...
Business intelligence is a form of intellectual capital, but it's one that can - with discretion - be disseminated to the public (which includes common stock shareholders) with little risk of loss to the business. EPGL's tweeter is currently providing useful business intelligence information to shareholders when the messages pertain to PR clarification, general status of patent applications or other business updates that may not merit a PR. It is especially helpful when, due to the inherent nature of an R & D business (heavy on IP & IC), many things must be kept secret from the competition and, therefore, the public - which does, in fact, include common stock shareholders.
Shareholders should not expect any details about patent applications until they become public, including dates or scope of invention - other than whatever the company may announce to the public. ALL related information is confidential and secret. Anything whatsoever that is divulged to the public is (should be) only done so to serve the interest of the business (which, by definition, includes shareholders). Giving ANY additional information only takes away from the company's ability to leverage the full value of it's intellectual capital.
A Provisional patent app is simply a "placeholder." It's the fastest way to get "first to file" status. As soon as it's submitted, you have your "priority date," and then you have 12 months to file a Non-Provisional patent app, or you lose that "priority date." The Non-Provisional patent app requires much more time, research and detail to compose, and so virtually every inventor or company pursuing intellectual property protection starts with Provisional apps now, since the system was recently changed to "first to file."
For this type of invention, they are ALL "Utility" patents.
SB, I can only clear up a thing or two, but here...
There are generally 2 types of patents that could pertain to this:
1) Design patent (only has to do with the industrial design / appearance / form factor... so this is not it)
2) Utility patent - this is it
There are 2 types of U.S. patent applications:
a) Provisional (so... Provisional, Utility)
b) Non-Provisional (so... Non-Provisional, Utility)
The latest tweet indicates that this is a PCT app, so it is international. Doesn't mean there wasn't a Provisional, as well as a PCT app (filing a Provisional + PCT). Here's a good article about this recommended strategy:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/pct_strategies/the_third_way.pdf
The Provisional App is "the new way," now that we've changed in very recent years to a "first to file" system. This is the best and fastest way to cover intellectual property and ensure that you get there first! If you want to expand to international... this is best through WIPO and PCT, rather than going to each individual country separately.
It's difficult to say when the provisional and/or PCT app(s) was/were done, as we only know - I think - about a PR regarding the contact lens case recently. They could have filed patent docs at any time, even a year ago.
The important thing to recognize is that this is intellectual property, and it's in EPGL's best interest to keep as much secret as possible, for as long as possible. IP is leverage. There is nothing funny about the information we are being given in these tweets. Patents can have multiple independent claims with tons of dependent claims, but the fewer and simpler they are - and if they can be broken out into separate "inventions" (this is the whole point, of course, it's all about "invention") - even better. This gives best, broadest scope of IP coverage for inventions.
All of this seems plausible, I hope it works out as expected. Sincerely. GLTY
I'm just replying to you, WBB, not trying to be a nuisance.
I'm not sure where you're coming from with your definition of "investor" being "someone who owns several 'tens' of millions of shares that is now ready for the numbers to hit the board." I thought you were a commodities trader in your pre-retirement life. I don't think you really believe that, or that you think Warren Buffet wasn't an investor until he accumulated several tens of millions of shares of stock.
I know you won't take my word for it because I'm just MoneyForNuthin, but most successful investors will tell you that "investing" has more to do with risk management and loss avoidance (initial DD, maintenance DD, diversification, among other tools, techniques and strategies) than anything else. Once you're holding several tens of millions of shares, they are yours to do with what you will. If you wait for the numbers to hit the board... they will. You can do the same at the craps table.
Of course when I "invest" my goal is to see the value of that investment improve. No argument that I'd like to see a positive return, consistent with - or disproportionately better than - the amount invested and the time that it's invested. Given the potential reward in this risk-reward scenario (easily 10x, potentially 100x or more within a year or two, five??), I would be willing to take a lot of risk and hold millions of shares (not several tens of millions, unfortunately) for a much longer time. But you can see that I don't feel the risk is worth the reward - that doesn't say much for my assessment of the risk, does it? But to be sure, this is just my own assessment, my humble opinion, based on my own DD. I wish the best for you and all COTE holders.
I don't know about frustrated. Disappointed is probably more accurate. I wanted to see COTE deliver on the dream. I believe my recent comment was a potentially valuable contribution to this board. It's just my opinion. I tried to help where it's mostly not wanted and ill-advised to reach out to those who could use it most.
I hope to see some names of good people of this board trading successfully and contributing on other ticker boards. Good luck to you, Angkor, and all.
Are you kidding?!? See the forest behind these Charlie Brown trees, for crying out loud, I just finished out!!!!
Don't sniff around for lawsuits, too much deniability - left out any important (legal) details for all to speculate... "at their own risk."
Yes - toxic as it gets. With Southridge, he essentially has a line of credit that's good for 3 years. So when this thing hits the skids in a really big way finally, he and his have some time to figure out how to make a good story for a comeback... after BK or whatever he likes best. He still owns any IP, if that's any value at all for the next phase of perpetual income for the family fortune.
So anything he can get right now that doesn't tap into the 3-yr LOC just buys more time. Thus... new toxic debt and of course more shares for the float... AND for the family via anti-dilution clause.
HaHa. Yeah, I just peaked in on this, saw what was going on and thought I'd toss some spare change ;^)
50ma/100ma Golden Cross
$EPGL
QE & Stay Long
I think if you look carefully you'll see that GC never actually says who the customer(s) is/are for this first production run.
Also, regarding previous questions about the S-1 and RW's (Registration Withdrawals), you can see by looking at Page 24 of each of the S-1's - and noting the 8K that was filed between the last 2 S-1's - that most of this was manipulation for navigating the tandem deals between Vis Vires Group for the debt financing ($62,500 convertible loan) and Southridge for the $20,000,000 "equity" financing. The stated convertible debt balance changed from $241,000 to $208,000 to $271,000 between these S-1's.
It seemed to me since the 6/2 PR (re-confirmed orders and significant increase in the orders from UAE) that the 1st production natural gas gen sets for the deposit(s) received (7/15 PR) must be for a UAE customer or customers. But GC never actually stated that.
The interlaced PR's about the China deal(s) are about manufacturing (at some level, possibly final assembly and value-added only), licensing and distribution - first related to distribution in the eastern hemisphere (2013/2014) and more recently about distribution in the western hemisphere (2014/2015).
Consequently, there has been nothing but conjecture and speculation regarding the customer and application for this first production run - now apparently assumed by many to be China. Funny how the smallest seed of implication can turn so quickly into "accepted facts."
From the Coates PR's, we have NO idea who the customer is. Clearly it is meant to be this way, for whatever reason. But from reading the PR's, I think the better guess would be UAE.
In the 7/15 PR GC starts with "These first production industrial CSRV natural gas electric power generator sets are to be shipped out by the end of this month." This paragraph just happens to include "China is one of the biggest markets for the Coates CSRV products." Continuing in that paragraph: "Presently, we are short staffed and need to ramp up the production process in our New Jersey plant."
Now, after a paragraph break, GC goes on about "It is not an easy job to go from R&D into production. Management is considering acquiring a local building of 101,318 square feet for our production expansion in the USA."
Out of the statements quoted above, only 1 does not fit with the flow: "China is one of the biggest markets for the Coates CSRV products."
If it read "Our customer in China..." -- But it doesn't. It changes the subject and then goes right back to talking about production. And then after a paragraph break, it continues about production. B.S. This is fodder for speculation and the rumor mill (and of course a lovely "buy the rumor" run-up).
After more careful review of PR's and filings, I no longer buy (no pun, but literally) the idea that GC has his peculiarities and isn't good with PR or sales. I think GC knows what he's doing. IMHO, his broken paragraphs and run-on subjects that seem to be just poorly composed press releases are carefully crafted to stimulate a specific response - further speculation, supported by those who might explain away the vagaries and secrecy as "George's way."
IMO, there is so much plausible deniability here that it seems as if GC studied Madoff and Abramoff and figured out what they didn't know.
After this week I've got one foot out the door. I still have half on the table because I'm like most of the folks who are still in - if GC does actually ship, I'll get a piece of a huge spike. But my other foot's out the door because I now consider this truly a lottery ticket with not much better chances than winning the lottery. There's too much of a chance that GC is walking the fine line again with possibly being able to ship something, but not quite ready. I just can't count the number of times that he's had a contract or a license deal or an order... and, until now, no successful production.
Why am I putting this out there? Because I think something should be said. Hopefully others will only put in their lottery ticket budget on any run-up. I don't care if it cuts into my upside potential or causes a little downside for me, I feel better about helping out the next guy or gal. I don't like being played like this. If GC delivers - my sincerest appologies for not continuing my support with blind faith; if not, he's tricked me into tying up most of my high risk funds when I could have been heavy into other options with higher integrity like EPG$ or PPC$.
I don't buy it that GC doesn't care about new investor/trader shareholders (though it seems quite possible that he doesn't respect day and short traders... don't know what that says about the rest of us long swing traders and long-term holders). He knows it's his bread and butter to continue operating and having any hope of breaking through - hence, the recent convertible debt and more recent effective S1.
But I'm tired of getting strung along with vague, piecemeal information. Anyone who's been at this for 25yrs+ knows how to get what they want/need from investors/shareholders (of any sort). So far, GC is getting what he wants/needs - increased share price to support the recent convertible financing and this new deal from Southridge, and the eventual near-term dilution when the new shares start trading.
What I have received in return for my support is an announcement that now shares can be sold to finance production - again - and a "by the way" vague status update saying only that there has been a production/shipment delay caused by supplier delays and design changes and -
- NO assurance that any burn-in testing (300-500) has been successful (are the "modifications to certain parts" due to burn-in failures, meaning that the design still doesn't work?)
and
- what appears to be a carefully-worded statement that SEEMS to reference the 300-500 hour burn-in testing, but only saying that the "generators are operating every week."
If the generators are actually being run continuously for the 300-500 hour burn-in, I think he would have stated that the generators are running CONTINUOUSLY or at least that the generators are running DAILY. All this statement tells me is that at least once each week more than one generator has been turned on at least momentarily.
I've set my limit, and I'm out if it hits before I hear something that supports the earlier promise that shipments will be going out soon, coincidental with the new debt/equity financing deals that were announced after the promise.
No better information... I can only assume that I'm being led further down the same twisting, turning 25yr+ road. I've accumulated and supported, but I am definitely walking away with something this time - not being the bag-holder again.
Do you suppose that maybe someone with not-so-much experience wants to sell their 5M and doesn't realize they could sell for more if they break it up and sell in smaller lots at graduated increasing limit prices??? The day is set up perfectly for that.
Putting the 5M block up at 0.01 - lucky to sell any of them if that's what they really want. It's been sitting there on 0.01 for hours, I think.
I guess an alternative suggestion is that MM is trying to block for short cover.
got some 78s... gone
got some 80s... gone
got some 85s... gone
got some 86s... gone, I think
got half of my 87s, been sitting on it for a while now... I think maybe... gone?
Who cares? Why do you care? There's no volume in any selling that's going on, so it has no effect whatsoever on the upward pressure that is building strong for COTE. Some people (like me) are just getting lucky with small sales at low prices by swing traders that have no clue what's going on with this business.
I'm buying up more shares in case it doesn't dip any lower. If it does dip lower and I've already filled up, no big deal, I know this is going much, much higher over the coming days and months.
There are a lot of investors and day-/swing-traders who are watching COTE, and many more each day now. Many of them are already holding - and that's what I mean... holding. Notice there is no real selling going on. When is the last time you looked at a ticker with 1B OS sitting there with daily volume between 5M and 30M after a 90% pop over 7 days? The holders are holding because they know how this is developing and there is very high growth potential starting now that can continue for several years - due to the very low market cap it's starting from and the size of the potential market(s) for COTE's products and IP. Unlike most penny stocks --- until the growth starts slowing 4 or 5 years down the road, why sell a single share? (or maybe you rob a few shares from yourself after it grows substantially to pay a few bills if needed) A stock like this can set you up for future security and a comfortable retirement.
This is all my opinion only, of course, not investment advice. Investors should do their own due diligence and make decisions they are comfortable and competent with, using money they can afford to lose - especially in the OTC.
Nice!!! Got 'em at 55!!!! Thank you!!!
You guys have this all wrong!!!
This is not like "dumping" toxic debt. This is pretty good financing, really!
ANY shares that get sold into the market will be sold ONLY after the financer pays 94% of the lowest volume-averaged market price of the Common Stock over the 10 days following the Put Notice (which is basically COTE's call to the bank saying "hey we want some of that money that you committed to buying our stock).
It's ALLL GOOODDD!
Here's the COTE Form S-1 that was filed (you can find these things at otcmarkets.com and then searching "COTE"... and then clicking on the "Filings and Disclosure" menu item).
Other that all of the disclaimers and caveats and such, the short summary is:
1. For purposes of determining the registration fee to be paid to the SEC when filing the form, they indicate the price per share as 0.00365. (This is important to note, because this is not the actual price they will get from the sale of 200M shares.) (Page 3)
2. The price they will get whenever they opt to "put" shares to the buyer is 94% of the lowest volume-weighted daily average of the 10 days starting from the notice date and ending on and including the 10th day after. (Page 17)
3. Page 8 shows the shares outstanding (OS or O/S, Outstanding Shares) before and after the 200,000,000.
Sorry about any confusion, below changed to correct date: 6/28
--------------------------------------
I respect your comments. Your assessment and preliminary conclusion seems pragmatic, fact-based... well-founded: "we don't know what kind of deal they have/had worked out since the beginning. I hope they are still in business together."
My preliminary conclusion is the same as yours, but here are a few fact-based comments that some may find helpful to interpret in their own way. Maybe someone will read something between the lines that I don't see.
My fact-based comments:
1. I talked with Joel recently (Sunday 6/28) - over the weekend when the Durango article surfaced ("CannaCamp homeless"). Like others who claimed that they talked with Joel that weekend, I was reassured that CannaCamp was still on, though the first location did in fact fall through. I was also told that Vanessa had over 700 inquiries to respond to, that she secured a new location, and that Joel in fact had already written the press release and it would be published in the morning.
2. During my 6/28 discussion with Joel, regarding the CannaCamp, he said that "SHE came to ME with the CannaCamp concept! If it works out, we may do additional deals at other locations with her." This is paraphrased, of course, I can't say I remember the exact words - he may have said "THEY came to US, if it goes well we may do more deals with them at other properties."
3. The cannacamp.co website is apparently under Vanessa's control. You can see this from the images on her trademark registration document.
4. The cannacamp.co domain is registered in a completely different way than the MJMJ websites and the name/contact info is private. Seems likely that it was registered on Vanessa's end.
5. There are no links on the cannacamp.co website or any references to Mary Jane Group or Bud + Breakfast. Even the PR choices that are referenced/linked on the cannacamp.co website are suspiciously void of mentions of Mary Jane Group and/or Bud + Breakfast. Only the last of the 4 links (mashable) has any reference at all to Mary Jane Group, and I recall that one of the others does mention something to the effect of "CannaCamp comes from the roots of the Bud + Breakfast." And the very clear reference at the top of the mashable article was updated recently, so Vanessa may not even be aware of it.
6. I am definitely not an IP specialist, but I may have dealt with patents and trademarks more than the average "investor" (I am using that term loosely). Trademark protection is based largely on "first use in commerce." To me, it seems clear that both parties can claim the same first use, but that is just my interpretation (my very humble opinion). Like you said, we don't know what sort of deal MJMJ and Roberts et al have or had as it may relate to this. Note that, though Roberts' trademark registration document claims first use on 11/29/2014 - probably as it relates to the first publishing date of her WordPress website - one image in her document shows 11/21/2014. This date coincides with the 11/21/14 registration of the cannacamp.co domain name, and also that of the first use in commerce claimed by MJMJ in Joel's trademark registration document.
7. As is clear from the above information, the CannaCamp concept is on record at least (that we know of) as far back as 11/21/2014. Six months later, the press release came on 6/9/15 - CannaCamp is taking reservations! I don't remember the exact date of the filing for the property sale of the Wilderness Trails Ranch, but it was within a week of 6/9/15, if I remember correctly.
8. There was clearly much thought and "preliminary" work that went into planning for CannaCamp prior to the 4/20/15 press release about a "preliminary joint venture agreement" (nicely worded), followed by the eventual big splash press release by the New York firm that surely pushed it out to the late show hosts... and then finally the vague deflection by Roberts: "When asked why the group made the official announcement before securing a location, Roberts responded: 'It was clear that we needed to move a lot quicker than we were anticipating, which is a good challenge to have. I would not call that a problem.'”
(read between the lines and develop your own thoughts, interpretations or conclusions before reading mine, below)
Joel (& Co.) and Vanessa (& Co.) are much more small-business-startup savvy than the typical iHub poster might imagine. Put the two together and add a dash of NY PR consultant, and you get what is paid for - an orchestrated plan to make a big splash, including successful script proposals for 2 of the country's most popular show hosts to use for their late night entertainment content. What, does anyone here actually think that serendipity just happens... and that all of that late night material is just dug up by chance by the writers and their assistants? Ha! That's crazy thinking. Some of it, not nearly all of it.
Preliminary work on the CannaCamp concept, including feedback and proposals from the PR consultant was very compelling - this would definitely make a big splash (and possibly one or two late show writers/producers already tipped their hand that they would use the material). Looks like a buyer has come along who may not play along with this plan (and lease the property to MJMJ/Roberts joint venture). Whatever the deal between MJMJ and Roberts, it was in best interest of both parties to proceed with the PR before the opportunity is gone, but it must be done before the sale is final.
'Okay, so it may be "embarrassing" to do the PR and then be left without a home for CannaCamp - no problem, that will just be a second PR opportunity, or maybe even a third - another joke for late night shows about losing the location ("must have been partaking"), and then a big paid PR that "We found our home!" But this will get us noticed in a big way and so it's good for both parties, even if our (actual) deal is to go our separate ways after the PR.'
There's no harm done with this. America gets good late night entertainment, our business(es) will get great publicity, much attention will be given to the concept, and CannaCamp will be added to the public vocabulary and Webster's dictionary. What's good for the business is good for shareholders. Long-term shareholders, anyway. Okay, maybe some wannabe day traders and swing traders will lose a little money, but that's the risk they take.
There is no doubt in my mind that MJMJ and Roberts are now competitors (in concept). But it may have been that way from the start (we don't know what sort of deal MJMJ and Roberts et al have or had). And I don't see it as a problem in any case. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Know your enemy. These are overstatements. I don't think the two parties are enemies, and I don't think they are or will be fierce competitors. I think they can be complimentary. Vanessa has a (seemingly) well-formed idea with some good legwork done and a piece of the CannaCamp press release. Joel/MJMJ has a similar idea, an existing growth business with some momentum, a previously established brand, an existing revenue stream and a piece of the CannaCamp press release. Both potentially have a piece of a positive new brand. Both being "small-business-startup savvy" in their own unique ways, I think they will find a way to co-exist, at the least. But more likely, I think, they will find a way to "cohabitate" in this new market category, such that each party has the opportunity to succeed. They could actually compliment each other and their combined presence may help to keep competition at bay (in the same way that healthy grass chokes out the weeds in a well-maintained lawn). I know that Joel said MJMJ withdrew "its support of the planned CannaCamp resort in Durango, Colorado," and decided to "discontinue our partnership with that land partner," but I hope that doesn't mean he's ruled out other relationship options.
Well, I happen to be one of the wannabe swing traders, and I'm out thousands (of dollars). I'd rather be a long-term shareholder, because I really like the concept (the whole MJMJ picture), and I'm pretty sure Joel will be successful and the business will eventually thrive. Being the OTC and "you never really know what's going on," I thought I'd make a little gain and then pull my principal funds, keep the profit in the stock for the long run. But I didn't trust anymore and thought I might lose more than half, so I bailed after the (PR) admission that CannaCamp was not happening.
My position is to watch and look for a more confident low re-entry point, and try it again. I'm watching for how Joel handles the CannaCamp trademark and relationship with Roberts. I'm concerned about the convertible notes, as I don't really believe they're done yet. I think we're going to see some more dilution before the CC on 7/27. And then some more after.
I respect your comments. Your assessment and preliminary conclusion seems pragmatic, fact-based... well-founded: "we don't know what kind of deal they have/had worked out since the beginning. I hope they are still in business together."
My preliminary conclusion is the same as yours, but here are a few fact-based comments that some may find helpful to interpret in their own way. Maybe someone will read something between the lines that I don't see.
My fact-based comments:
1. I talked with Joel recently (Sunday 7/28) - over the weekend when the Durango article surfaced ("CannaCamp homeless"). Like others who claimed that they talked with Joel that weekend, I was reassured that CannaCamp was still on, though the first location did in fact fall through. I was also told that Vanessa had over 700 inquiries to respond to, that she secured a new location, and that Joel in fact had already written the press release and it would be published in the morning.
2. During my 7/28 discussion with Joel, regarding the CannaCamp, he said that "SHE came to ME with the CannaCamp concept! If it works out, we may do additional deals at other locations with her." This is paraphrased, of course, I can't say I remember the exact words - he may have said "THEY came to US, if it goes well we may do more deals with them at other properties."
3. The cannacamp.co website is apparently under Vanessa's control. You can see this from the images on her trademark registration document.
4. The cannacamp.co domain is registered in a completely different way than the MJMJ websites and the name/contact info is private. Seems likely that it was registered on Vanessa's end.
5. There are no links on the cannacamp.co website or any references to Mary Jane Group or Bud + Breakfast. Even the PR choices that are referenced/linked on the cannacamp.co website are suspiciously void of mentions of Mary Jane Group and/or Bud + Breakfast. Only the last of the 4 links (mashable) has any reference at all to Mary Jane Group, and I recall that one of the others does mention something to the effect of "CannaCamp comes from the roots of the Bud + Breakfast." And the very clear reference at the top of the mashable article was updated recently, so Vanessa may not even be aware of it.
6. I am definitely not an IP specialist, but I may have dealt with patents and trademarks more than the average "investor" (I am using that term loosely). Trademark protection is based largely on "first use in commerce." To me, it seems clear that both parties can claim the same first use, but that is just my interpretation (my very humble opinion). Like you said, we don't know what sort of deal MJMJ and Roberts et al have or had as it may relate to this. Note that, though Roberts' trademark registration document claims first use on 11/29/2014 - probably as it relates to the first publishing date of her WordPress website - one image in her document shows 11/21/2014. This date coincides with the 11/21/14 registration of the cannacamp.co domain name, and also that of the first use in commerce claimed by MJMJ in Joel's trademark registration document.
7. As is clear from the above information, the CannaCamp concept is on record at least (that we know of) as far back as 11/21/2014. Six months later, the press release came on 6/9/15 - CannaCamp is taking reservations! I don't remember the exact date of the filing for the property sale of the Wilderness Trails Ranch, but it was within a week of 6/9/15, if I remember correctly.
8. There was clearly much thought and "preliminary" work that went into planning for CannaCamp prior to the 4/20/15 press release about a "preliminary joint venture agreement" (nicely worded), followed by the eventual big splash press release by the New York firm that surely pushed it out to the late show hosts... and then finally the vague deflection by Roberts: "When asked why the group made the official announcement before securing a location, Roberts responded: 'It was clear that we needed to move a lot quicker than we were anticipating, which is a good challenge to have. I would not call that a problem.'”
(read between the lines and develop your own thoughts, interpretations or conclusions before reading mine, below)
Joel (& Co.) and Vanessa (& Co.) are much more small-business-startup savvy than the typical iHub poster might imagine. Put the two together and add a dash of NY PR consultant, and you get what is paid for - an orchestrated plan to make a big splash, including successful script proposals for 2 of the country's most popular show hosts to use for their late night entertainment content. What, does anyone here actually think that serendipity just happens... and that all of that late night material is just dug up by chance by the writers and their assistants? Ha! That's crazy thinking. Some of it, not nearly all of it.
Preliminary work on the CannaCamp concept, including feedback and proposals from the PR consultant was very compelling - this would definitely make a big splash (and possibly one or two late show writers/producers already tipped their hand that they would use the material). Looks like a buyer has come along who may not play along with this plan (and lease the property to MJMJ/Roberts joint venture). Whatever the deal between MJMJ and Roberts, it was in best interest of both parties to proceed with the PR before the opportunity is gone, but it must be done before the sale is final.
'Okay, so it may be "embarassing" to do the PR and then be left without a home for CannaCamp - no problem, that will just be a second PR opportunity, or maybe even a third - another joke for late night shows about losing the location ("must have been partaking"), and then a big paid PR that "We found our home!" But this will get us noticed in a big way and so it's good for both parties, even if our (actual) deal is to go our separate ways after the PR.'
There's no harm done with this. America gets good late night entertainment, our business(es) will get great publicity, much attention will be given to the concept, and CannaCamp will be added to the public vocabulary and Webster's dictionary. What's good for the business is good for shareholders. Long-term shareholders, anyway. Okay, maybe some wannabe day traders and swing traders will lose a little money, but that's the risk they take.
There is no doubt in my mind that MJMJ and Roberts are now competitors (in concept). But it may have been that way from the start (we don't know what sort of deal MJMJ and Roberts et al have or had). And I don't see it as a problem in any case. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Know your enemy. These are overstatements. I don't think the two parties are enemies, and I don't think they are or will be fierce competitors. I think they can be complimentary. Vanessa has a (seemingly) well-formed idea with some good legwork done and a piece of the CannaCamp press release. Joel/MJMJ has a similar idea, an existing growth business with some momentum, a previously established brand, an existing revenue stream and a piece of the CannaCamp press release. Both potentially have a piece of a positive new brand. Both being "small-business-startup savvy" in their own unique ways, I think they will find a way to co-exist, at the least. But more likely, I think, they will find a way to "cohabitate" in this new market category, such that each party has the opportunity to succeed. They could actually compliment each other and their combined presence may help to keep competition at bay (in the same way that healthy grass chokes out the weeds in a well-maintained lawn). I know that Joel said MJMJ withdrew "its support of the planned CannaCamp resort in Durango, Colorado," and decided to "discontinue our partnership with that land partner," but I hope that doesn't mean he's ruled out other relationship options.
Well, I happen to be one of the wannabe swing traders, and I'm out thousands (of dollars). I'd rather be a long-term shareholder, because I really like the concept (the whole MJMJ picture), and I'm pretty sure Joel will be successful and the business will eventually thrive. Being the OTC and "you never really know what's going on," I thought I'd make a little gain and then pull my principal funds, keep the profit in the stock for the long run. But I didn't trust anymore and thought I might lose more than half, so I bailed after the (PR) admission that CannaCamp was not happening.
My position is to watch and look for a more confident low re-entry point, and try it again. I'm watching for how Joel handles the CannaCamp trademark and relationship with Roberts. I'm concerned about the convertible notes, as I don't really believe they're done yet. I think we're going to see some more dillution before the CC on 7/27. And then some more after.