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.
I PERSONLY THANK MONEY TV FOR SHOWING IMGG
IF SOME OF YOU LOST MONEY HERE IT COULD BE BECOUSE OF ME.
I went on other Ihub boards later when it was going to have FDA approval with a link to the info. I rode with most of my shares all the way up. I even had Smith Barney call me two times to say do you know how much money ect I road it all the way down but took a little off the table at 0.40. I have the same feeling now as when I first started buying. Dean might have to have to semit it another way where they have hospitals use it take. Then resend it in. Witch would take a couple years or so. The price of the shares make you happy when it goes up. But if the price you think the co. should be is not their it does not matter to me if it is 0.10 or $5.00. I know now that their will be some mor long time holders (management) and not flippers holding it.
I lost my posting priviage by going to other boards avertising IMGG. Just got it back after almost two years.
kimble1
We can follow deans buying and selling with the SEC
But people that had 2 million shares it is hard to tell when they bought and sold. We just have to belive what they said on the this board
One PR stated that they had financing from from some co. they will just get it when needed. If the management thought that the co. needed money Dean would sell some of his shares and buy restricted shares like did to keep the co. going. Look at some of his post at the beging of Ihub board.
"and where his financing is coming from"
From the management own pocket Read slowly
So if the co. has 500,000,000 shares out standing management is willing to buy 25,000,000 shares
It did not say the company is buying it back.
If a company buy it back the company has to make sure that it will not raise the prise of the shares I read that in a letter to share holder from Sears and Robuck not over the open market
Imaging3™, Inc. (OTCBB: IMGG), developer of a breakthrough medical imaging device that produces 3D medical diagnostic images of virtually any part of the human body in real-time, today announced that its Board of Directors has approved the repurchase of an aggregate of up to 5% of its outstanding Common Stock, by the Company's management, effective immediately.
Dean Janes, Chairman and CEO of Imaging3, commented, "Our open market purchases by management over the course of the next year reflects management's continued confidence in Imaging3's business strategy and growth prospects
IH admin Dan post no. 99477 got 10 days for 4 account names. I got over 2 years. What is going on. Do you think that is right? At the time i was symbol IMGG aassistent. was that the reason
j-walker your lucky only 30 days. I am out for 2 1/2 years. Must have been some one shorting the same stock I was talking about.
Do you guys have any insiders selling IMGG? Please let me know.
Hi adm. If you think you have made a mastake in suspended me because of pumping and dumping with diferend ID I would like my posting privleges back Imgg went from $0.05 to $0.25 because you said we were pumping it and was going to dump it . Now after no posting it went to $0.98 it went to $0.25 not because of us pumping it it went their because of the soon to be FDA aproval.
When you accused my family you messed with the wrong customer
Same news different date on the toyota ihub board
Toyota Patent Trade Case May Threaten Hybrid Imports
By Susan Decker and Alan Ohnsman
Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s biggest seller of autos powered by a combination of gasoline and electricity, faces a patent-infringement claim that may result in a U.S. import ban on its Prius and other hybrid models.
Closely held Paice LLC filed a complaint yesterday with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, claiming Toyota is infringing its patent. The company seeks an order to ban imports of Toyota products using its invention.
Paice won a jury verdict in 2005 that the Prius and hybrid Highlander and Lexus RX400h sport-utility vehicles used Paice inventions related to drivetrains. The new ITC complaint claims the hybrid Camry, third-generation Prius, Lexus HS250h sedan and Lexus RX450h SUV infringe the same patent.
“Given the momentum Toyota hybrids have in the marketplace, I don’t foresee a situation where their hybrid sales stop,” said Ed Kim, an analyst at AutoPacific Inc. in Tustin, California. “Toyota has been pretty good about looking ahead, so it would be surprising if they hadn’t foreseen and prepared for something like this.”
In the complaint, Paice said Toyota is precluded from arguing that the additional vehicles don’t infringe the patent or challenging its validity because of the 2005 verdict, which was upheld on appeal. The hybrid drivetrains of the vehicles in the ITC case “are materially the same” as those in the Lexus and Toyota models in the civil case, Paice said in the complaint.
That same patent will be at the center of another trial set to begin Oct. 1 in federal court in Marshall, Texas, involving the Camry. Paice claims the hybrid sedan infringes two other patents. A second case pending in Marshall involves claims of infringement of another patent by the Highlander and Lexus models.
Exclusion Order
The commission in Washington is set up to protect U.S. market from unfair trade practices, including patent infringement. If it agrees to investigate Paice’s claims, the investigation could be completed in about 15 months. It has the power to order U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials to block infringing products from entering the country.
Unlike a civil court, the ITC doesn’t have the power to order Toyota to pay royalties, and the only remedy possible if a violation is found is an exclusion order. Toyota spokesman Hideaki Homma declined to comment on the case.
To be able to win at the ITC, Paice must show that it has a market to protect. In the complaint, Paice says it has made “substantial investments” in vendors and suppliers and in research and licensing.
The company is based in Bonita Springs, Florida, and has offices in Maryland, Michigan and Virginia, according to the complaint. Company officials didn’t immediately return calls.
Patent Owners
The ITC, in an unrelated case, is currently considering the standard that must be met before patent owners who don’t make products can file complaints.
Toyota closed unchanged at 3,850 yen in Tokyo.
ect ect.
One reason why SOLM might be quite in the court case is it could be that they want Toyota to have a fair jury selection.
9/03/2009 UPDATE
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07CV80(LED)
JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION
VirnetX, Inc. (“VirnetX) hereby opposes Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) Motion
for Clarification to Amend Appendix B to Claim Construction Opinion (“Motion”) and would
show as follows.
The Court, in its Claim Construction Order and Opinion, construed “virtual private
network” (“VPN”) as “a network of computers which privately communicate with each other by
encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between computers.” See Claim
Construction Opinion [Dkt. No. 246] at 10.1 Microsoft asks the Court to add the following
sentence to the end of this construction: “‘Privately’ means ensuring both data security and
anonymity.” See Motion at 2. Because Microsoft’s proposed revision takes a portion of the
1 As a initial matter, VirnetX opposes Microsoft’s Motion so as not to waive its objection to the
Court’s construction of the term “virtual private network” to the extent that the Court did not
adopt VirnetX’s proposed construction.
Court’s Opinion out-of-context and introduces ambiguity into the construction of virtual private
network, the Court should not adopt Microsoft’s proposal.
Although the Court’s Opinion states that a VPN “require[es] both data security and
anonymity,” Microsoft’s proposed revision to this construction fails to capture the reasoning
underlying the Court’s Claim Construction Opinion and takes a single sentence from the Court’s
thirty-two page opinion out-of-context. Microsoft ignores the context of this statement that (i)
compared the parties’ respective positions regarding anonymity; (ii) detailed the degree of
anonymity of various VPN systems; and (iii) evaluated multiple definitions of “VPN.” See id. at
4-10. Further, this sentence was not written for a lay audience. While the sentence is clearly
understood in the Court’s Opinion, it would introduce ambiguity if taken out of this context and
submitted to the jury.
For this reason, Microsoft’s reliance on Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co.,
563 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) is misplaced. Although the Federal Circuit has “emphasized the
necessity of assigning ‘fixed meaning’ to terms within constructions as part of the process of
assigning unambiguous meaning to the claims,” see Motion at 2, there is nothing fixed or
unambiguous about Microsoft’s proposed construction. Microsoft’s proposed construction
introduces ambiguity to the construction of VPN—through the terms “ensuring” and
“anonymity”—and offers no additional guidance to the jury.
Moreover, if the Court adopts Microsoft’s clarification, VirnetX fears that Microsoft will
attempt to exploit this ambiguity by re-arguing to the jury what the Court has already decided
during claim construction. Specifically, Microsoft may attempt to equate the “anonymity”
requirement of the Court’s construction to IP tunneling or the IP address hopping feature of the
preferred embodiments of the patents-in-suit, but both of these arguments have already been
rejected by the Court.
For all of these reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests that the Court deny Microsoft’s
Motion for Clarification and to Amend Appendix B to the Claim Construction Opinion..
DATED: September 3, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Sam Baxter
Sam F. Baxter
Texas State Bar No. 01938000
E-mail: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
104 East Houston, Suite 300
Marshall, Texas 75670
Telephone: (903) 923-9000
Telecopier: (903) 923-9099
Douglas A. Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
E-mail: dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
Theodore Stevenson, III
Texas State Bar No. 19196650
E-mail: tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
Luke F. McLeroy
Texas State Bar No. 24041455
E-mail: lmcleroy@mckoolsmith.com
Jason D. Cassady
Texas State Bar No. 24045625
E-mail: jcassady@mckoolsmith.com
J. Austin Curry
Texas State Bar No. 24059636
E-mail: acurry@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
Otis W. Carroll
Texas State Bar No. 03895700
Deborah Race
Texas State Bar No. 16448700
IRELAND, CARROLL &KELLEY
6101 South Broadway, Suite 500
Tyler, Texas 75703
Telephone: (903) 561-1600
Facsimile: (903) 581-1071
E-mail: Fedserv@icklaw.com
Robert M. Parker
Texas State Bar No. 15498000
PARKER, BUNT &AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 East Ferguson
9/03/2009 UPDATE ON COURT
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:07CV80(LED)
JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFF VIRNETX INC.’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
TO AMEND APPENDIX B TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION
VirnetX, Inc. (“VirnetX) hereby opposes Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) Motion
for Clarification to Amend Appendix B to Claim Construction Opinion (“Motion”) and would
show as follows.
The Court, in its Claim Construction Order and Opinion, construed “virtual private
network” (“VPN”) as “a network of computers which privately communicate with each other by
encrypting traffic on insecure communication paths between computers.” See Claim
Construction Opinion [Dkt. No. 246] at 10.1 Microsoft asks the Court to add the following
sentence to the end of this construction: “‘Privately’ means ensuring both data security and
anonymity.” See Motion at 2. Because Microsoft’s proposed revision takes a portion of the
1 As a initial matter, VirnetX opposes Microsoft’s Motion so as not to waive its objection to the
Court’s construction of the term “virtual private network” to the extent that the Court did not
adopt VirnetX’s proposed construction.
Court’s Opinion out-of-context and introduces ambiguity into the construction of virtual private
network, the Court should not adopt Microsoft’s proposal.
Although the Court’s Opinion states that a VPN “require[es] both data security and
anonymity,” Microsoft’s proposed revision to this construction fails to capture the reasoning
underlying the Court’s Claim Construction Opinion and takes a single sentence from the Court’s
thirty-two page opinion out-of-context. Microsoft ignores the context of this statement that (i)
compared the parties’ respective positions regarding anonymity; (ii) detailed the degree of
anonymity of various VPN systems; and (iii) evaluated multiple definitions of “VPN.” See id. at
4-10. Further, this sentence was not written for a lay audience. While the sentence is clearly
understood in the Court’s Opinion, it would introduce ambiguity if taken out of this context and
submitted to the jury.
For this reason, Microsoft’s reliance on Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co.,
563 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) is misplaced. Although the Federal Circuit has “emphasized the
necessity of assigning ‘fixed meaning’ to terms within constructions as part of the process of
assigning unambiguous meaning to the claims,” see Motion at 2, there is nothing fixed or
unambiguous about Microsoft’s proposed construction. Microsoft’s proposed construction
introduces ambiguity to the construction of VPN—through the terms “ensuring” and
“anonymity”—and offers no additional guidance to the jury.
Moreover, if the Court adopts Microsoft’s clarification, VirnetX fears that Microsoft will
attempt to exploit this ambiguity by re-arguing to the jury what the Court has already decided
during claim construction. Specifically, Microsoft may attempt to equate the “anonymity”
requirement of the Court’s construction to IP tunneling or the IP address hopping feature of the
preferred embodiments of the patents-in-suit, but both of these arguments have already been
rejected by the Court.
For all of these reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests that the Court deny Microsoft’s
Motion for Clarification and to Amend Appendix B to the Claim Construction Opinion..
DATED: September 3, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Sam Baxter
Sam F. Baxter
Texas State Bar No. 01938000
E-mail: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
104 East Houston, Suite 300
Marshall, Texas 75670
Telephone: (903) 923-9000
Telecopier: (903) 923-9099
Douglas A. Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
E-mail: dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
Theodore Stevenson, III
Texas State Bar No. 19196650
E-mail: tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
Luke F. McLeroy
Texas State Bar No. 24041455
E-mail: lmcleroy@mckoolsmith.com
Jason D. Cassady
Texas State Bar No. 24045625
E-mail: jcassady@mckoolsmith.com
J. Austin Curry
Texas State Bar No. 24059636
E-mail: acurry@mckoolsmith.com
MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
Otis W. Carroll
Texas State Bar No. 03895700
Deborah Race
Texas State Bar No. 16448700
IRELAND, CARROLL &KELLEY
6101 South Broadway, Suite 500
Tyler, Texas 75703
Telephone: (903) 561-1600
Facsimile: (903) 581-1071
E-mail: Fedserv@icklaw.com
Robert M. Parker
Texas State Bar No. 15498000
PARKER, BUNT &AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 East Ferguson
If I remember right it is a computer that controls the gas going in the engine I guess it determine when the engine needs it and when to turn it off to let the electric engine work. The last time I knew the higher up judge reject to hear it.
NEWS
On Thursday September 3, 2009, 10:09 am EDT
Buzz up! 0 Print.Companies:VirnetX Holding Corp
SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., Sept. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- VirnetX Holding Corporation (NYSE Amex: VHC), an innovative secure real-time communications and collaboration technology company, today announced that it has entered into definitive agreements for a private placement of its common stock and warrants to purchase common stock. At the closing, the company will receive gross proceeds of $6.0 million and the investors will receive a short-term warrant (the Series III Warrant) giving the investors the right, during the 60-day period following effectiveness of the resale registration statement to be filed in connection with the financing, to purchase another $6.0 million of the company's common stock at the same price paid at the closing. In addition, the investors will receive a 5-year warrant (the Series I Warrant) covering 100% of the shares purchased at the closing and a warrant (the Series II Warrant) that affects the pricing of the shares purchased at the closing. Dawson James Securities, Inc. acted as the company's exclusive placement agent for the financing. The closing of the financing is subject to customary conditions. Details concerning the terms of the financing and the warrants can be found in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed today with the SEC at www.sec.gov.
"We are extremely pleased with this round of funding on what we believe are terms advantageous to the company and our current stockholders," said Kendall Larsen president and CEO of VirnetX. "This financing allows us to aggressively continue our litigation with Microsoft. In addition, we feel these funds will assist our licensing program as potential licensees recognize that they are not funding our litigation efforts. And finally, these funds will help ensure the much anticipated GABRIEL Connection Technology Beta launch in the fourth quarter of 2009."
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. There shall not be any sale of these securities in any jurisdiction in which such offering would be unlawful. The securities offered and sold in the private placement have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration, or an applicable exemption from registration under the Securities Act and applicable state securities laws.
About VirnetX
VirnetX Holding Corporation, a secure real-time communications and collaboration technology company, is engaged in commercializing its patent portfolio by developing a licensing program, as well as developing software products designed to create a secure environment for real-time communications such as instant messaging and Voice over Internet Protocol. The Company's patent portfolio includes over 25 U.S. and foreign patents and pending applications which specifically cover the Company's unique GABRIEL Connection Technology. For more information, please visit http://www.virnetx.com.
I didn't think they would PR any thing till after the long weekend. I was wrong they didn't want anybody to forget them over the long weekend.
I wonder if DIMITRIOS BILLER the former in house lawyer worked on our case or the ITC
Try SIXOQ
DID ANYBODY GET IN IMGG UP ALMOST 100% NOW $0.098
I thought you were going to say license fee to sell our solar panels. Solomon should get some thing up front.
MORE FROM YAHOO BOARD
I think there is somewhat more at play and nobody seems to be talkng about it.
Both Windows7 AND Chrome OS, will be released shortly and both will trample VirnetX patents. Neither can afford to underestimate the $DAMAGE$$ of being denied VHC PARADIGM CHANGING technology.
A loss of Windows as we know it, is UNthinkable to Microsoft.
Google undoubtedly went for $Billions$$, in deciding to take on Windows.
I cant see how either Microsoft or Google, can proceed if they are denied use of our Patents, by the other.
For that matter, Industry infringers, need ask themselves the same questions.
The Company is undoubtedly preparing for Trial in March but unless The Law Of Gravity has been repealed, I cant see it getting that far.
MORE FROM YAHOO BOARD
I think there is somewhat more at play and nobody seems to be talkng about it.
Both Windows7 AND Chrome OS, will be released shortly and both will trample VirnetX patents. Neither can afford to underestimate the $$DAMAGE$$ of being denied VHC PARADIGM CHANGING technology.
A loss of Windows as we know it, is UNthinkable to Microsoft.
Google undoubtedly went for $$Billions$$, in deciding to take on Windows.
I cant see how either Microsoft or Google, can proceed if they are denied use of our Patents, by the other.
For that matter, Industry infringers, need ask themselves the same questions.
The Company is undoubtedly preparing for Trial in March but unless The Law Of Gravity has been repealed, I cant see it getting that far.
WELL SOMEBODY ELSE SEE'S THIS THE SAME AS I DO
Looks like SOLM might have been planing ahead.
MeanBird a little new reading to catch up on.
The Gas Company, Hawaii's clean gas energy provider, has named Thomas K. L. M. Young as Sr. Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. In addition to overseeing operations on all of the Hawaiian Islands, Young will utilize his 28 years of experience with the Company, his background in chemistry, and his understanding of the local energy complex to continue to develop renewable energy solutions to meet the needs of Hawaii’s 21st century community. The Gas Company already supplies Hawaii’s gas utility customers with about 5% hydrogen made from recycled wastewater in Honolulu. Young is responsible for an initiative to drive the company to a 50% renewable energy supply within five years.
“It is a privilege to be able to work with people of the caliber of Tom Young as we move forward to supply Hawaii with more sustainable gas energy,” said Jeff Kissel, President and CEO. “We’re investing in Tom and the 300 energy professionals who serve Hawaii today with clean, reliable and low-cost gas energy, as the Company has for more than 105 years.”
Mr. Young joined The Gas Company in 1981 as an Assistant Chemist. By 1990 he was promoted to Plant Manager responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Company’s 16.7 million-cubic-foot-capacity synthetic natural gas (SNG) manufacturing plant. In 1998 he assumed responsibility for Oahu-based operations, and in 2008 he became Senior Vice President Operations responsible for the Company’s statewide gas operations including manufacturing, distribution, sales, compliance and project management.
Mr. Young holds a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from the University of Hawaii. He is serving on the State of Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative End Use Efficiency Working Group.
The Gas Company has been in business since 1904 and has a workforce of 300. It provides clean, reliable and energy-efficient gas to residential, business and government customers throughout the state of Hawaii – Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, Kauai, Molokai and Lanai. The Company manufactures synthetic natural gas (SNG) at its 16.7 million-cubic-foot-capacity plant located on Oahu and supplies SNG through a 1,100-mile pipeline network, and supplies propane gas (LPG) statewide.
The Gas Company LLC (www.hawaiigas.com) is a Hawaii-based, wholly owned subsidiary of Macquarie Infrastructure Company (NYSE: MIC) (www.macquarie.com/mic). MIC owns, operates, and invests in a diversified group of infrastructure businesses that provide basic services to customers across the United States.
Time TO Roll " to ship the first commercial units in the fourth quarter of this year " Thats not to far away. When they get rolling they will not have to go to china ect. to get it made cheaper with our Reynosa Mexico facility. Not to far from our sunshine states
DON'T BLAME IHUB MEMBERS FOR VHC GOING DOWN TODAY
SAME THING ONLY DIFFERENT
Associatesfortune.com: AssociatesFortune.com Profiles W2 Energy Inc. & Solomon Technologies, Inc.
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2505075/
WAS ON SOLM BOARD
YOU CAN GET MORE INFO ON CLOSED END FUNDS HERE http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundpages/other.asp?MFID=147489
NAV is what the value per share the fund is worth
Closeing share price whar you could buy it at last night
Current distrubution rate is the dividend rate
Premium/Discount IF it is a - it is % under the NAV
+ it is the % over the NAV
To learn what is going on in closed-end funds
http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/425.html
I might get in this for the new PR that should be coming out I would if the little word the was not their
Mr. Thomas selected to leave the Board of Directors to allow for new management to take the direction of the Company with (the )new products and technologies. There were no material disagreements or matters between the Parties.
Whereas the Board of Directors hereby agrees that George Ring shall be appointed Interim Chief Executive Officer of NGRN.
The Board of Directors, appointed John Stanton and George Ring as Directors of the Corporation upon the departure of the above directors, effective immediately.
Did anybody else notice the last trade on SOLM was a T trade ('T' If reporting a single protected transaction. A protected transaction occurs when a large order is going through the market. The buyer (or seller) may wish to keep the order anonymous from the rest of the market as the size of the order could greatly alter the price of the stock. With a protected transaction, the dealer will put the trade through in small quantities rather than knock the whole order out in one hit. The entire transaction is reported once the deal is completed. The LSE is notified at the start and at the end of the transaction. However, the market as a whole isn't told until the end, thus the order is protected.
) It was a sell order for 100,000 shares at $0.02 why would the MM buy it above market? Do MM get to see the PR first?
Any thoughts or comments on this.
kittycattt I am in it tried to wright, call , email to find where to send to get the intrest they owe me no responced went on to bigger and better things if you can get out before you are kitty litter I didn't on enron it is only nice to look at on my statement and smile as it is worth nothing.I was going to say check out MPG-A it went from under $2.00 to over $4.00 I don't think it is worth it now but mpg is around $1.00 if they make it could be a good investment
NO NEWS FROM THE COURT TODAY
sorkassaur It will be a little trickier for the average homeowner you would have to have a special meter that would measure in flow and out flow of electricity you might have to get the line phased right ( balanced ) and have the power co their to check every thing out. When the power company does it it should be free It is in NY. Better call first.
FOF PAYS ABOUT 9.7 % div it is unleverage but the funds they own could and do have leverage
YOU CAN GET MORE INFO ON CLOSED END FUNDS HERE http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundpages/other.asp?MFID=170238
NAV is what the value per share the fund is worth
Closeing share price whar you could buy it at last night
Current distrubution rate is the dividend rate
Premium/Discount IF it is a - it is % under the NAV
+ it is the % over the NAV
Must be the people on this board thought it was the same PR. But it told me
A That this Instant Solar(TM) is good enough to go on the grid. You just can't have anything go on the grid that will mess it up.
B It also told me more PR coming "we've had a positive response from a number of industry channels"
re "I like to see a picture" just in case you didn't see this,
I think you meant other than this.
INFO on pre assembled solar pv systems
http://www.technipowersystems.com/instant-solar
kubotapete Thanks for giving us the engineering point of view.
The board is quite for being up over 20% must be the flippers went on to bigger and better things.