Value Microcaps Motherboard

[pmony5]

TIK just to be fair the lawsuit is complete B.S as Aeroflex has dragged their feet for over 6 years now & to this day has NEVER ever specified what IP TIK copied ??? the plain truth is Aero tried drowning a cash poor TIK in BK & hoping to swoop in on the cheap. It didn't pan out that way for them some detailed info is at Noname stocks
http://www.nonamestocks.com/

Also those govt contracts are MANDATED contracts due mode 4 being decertified so not only the U.S. Govt but ALL 28 NATO countries MUST upgrade to mode 5. I'll take guaranteed Govt contact work at 35 to 40% margins lol... GLTY & make $$$$

The case for TIK
Of course TIK denies all charges. They say they developed everything on their own. TIK says they hired the two Aero guys just because they had good experience and the aviation test equipment world is a small place to find candidates within. There are 3 key components to TIK's denial of wrongdoing:

1. TIK was awarded the CRAFT contract in Mar 2005, more than a year before filing the protest of Aero's sole source award for the TS-4530 upgrade. So TIK was already working on Mode 5 capabilities and therefore had no need to steal Aero's IP. TIK claims they already had working Mode 5 technology in place. That is why TIK filed the protest and believed they could do the job. That also gave TIK leverage to help convince the Army that they could handle the TS-4530 upgrade. TIK says "This TIC Mode 5 technology was completed and demonstrated well before the arrival of either Chris Allen or Dr. Filardo at TIC."

2. TIK's plan for the upgrade was to gut the existing unit while retaining only the carcass. So once again TIK claims they had no need to steal Aero's IP. TIK's original proposal to the Army stated that it would in fact be a benefit to gut the old unit because it "does not restrict us with the older legacy technology design but allows us to use the latest cutting edge technology available." TIK goes as far as to say they are using the same board inside the CRAFT unit and the TS-4530A.

The Army response to Aero's protest:

"...the Army's conclusion...is that TIC's approach as set forth in its proposal is acceptable and will not necessitate an infringement of Aeroflex's propreitary rights. Aeroflex made two erroneous assumptions in formulating its protest against award of the contract to TIC. First, Aeroflex assumed TIC must have modified Aeroflex's proprietary hardware. Second, Aeroflex assumed TIC must have modified Aeroflex's proprietary software. As to hardware, TIC completely gutted the RTS and replaced the hardware with a single printed circuit board design utilizing new hardware components. ... As to software, the software TIC utilized is based on software developed internal to TIC and currently being used on similar Mode 5 equipment used elsewhere within the DoD."

3. So far Aeroflex has not produced any proof of wrongdoing. Aero claims TIK has stolen trade secrets while Allen and Filardo have violated their non-disclosure agreements but they offer no proof. Aero's original complaint says "Upon information and belief, TIC misappropriated Aeroflex Wichita's confidential and proprietary business information..." Aero later restated the complaint without the "upon information and belief" line but the idea is the same. It seems Aero is claiming TIK stole their IP based only on a belief that TIK must have done it and then Aero is hoping to find proof as they go through discovery.

The district court included the following statement when they originally found they did not have personal jurisdiction over TIK:

"Despite conducting discovery the plaintiff has produced no evidence Filardo misappropriated plaintiff's confidential and proprietary business information while working in Kansas and in fact the U.S. Army's investigative report rejected the plaintiff's claims. The evidence supports a finding Filardo worked on developing TIC's own proprietary software for the bid."