Sunday, April 19, 2020 9:21:13 PM
They very recently increased the A/S to 2 billion shares, so as share price hovers 1200% or more off relatively recent lows. If that isn't an invitation for SEC halt when they have been shutting down everything questionable that mentions Covid19 and chases news trends(masks were added to the website, right on que), not sure what is.
Someone presented a sincere query in regards to something as important as a retirement fund in times of financial Perils. I provided an honest answer based on my view of publicly available true grit evidence. And reminded them to follow up with their own due diligence before making their own financial decisions. rationalizing stock investments on half baked due diligence, is everyone personal perogative. But it wont change apparent facts based on evidence, even if this hits a dollar over persistent hype.
And it may, although recent trading action seems to indicate that the manipulation sweet spot has been from .01-.03. And even if the current float has all been bought up by stary eyed hopefuls. CFGN is hanging in the back ground and although we wont know for sure until they update the S/S, but the A/S increase to 2billion shares last Wed. or thurs. is an irrefutable fact. So the S/S is now far from maxed out and with $215K in active convertible debt on the books, and $1.25 million convertible in the pipeline dilution is plausible at any time now.
That said, here is the evidence I found that seems to refute your in depth analysis of key officers here... You can interpret any way you like, or even ignore it and blame the market if you keep buying this up to profit others and it all falls apart or gets suspended before you get out. I'm stuck in the house with little to do. So fact finding exercises my mind...
First, a few key excerpts from the most recent BOD letter. everything here was cut and pasted verbatim from company documentation. And original text can all be found in filings or PRs, with exception of commentary added with color altered so it is easily identifiable. So sorry for lengthiness, but I tried to insure nothing was taken out of context, so therefore copied everything that seemed relevant to its purpose...
And a few key quotes from ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 and a portion of the original shareholder letter upon which this recent shareholder letter was based(Link to this letter can be found in the previous post to which you responded)...
Some other links that seem to dispute Dr. gorobets position as Chief Technology officer and lead inventor...(scroll to bottom of each page to reveal the reality)...
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/211803
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/211799
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/211805
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/211801
If you are still having doubts, the information on the USPTO is probably the most reliable. I tried to create links, but it is set up as a portal into their data base, so direct link to relevant information regarding inventorship was not an option. As an alternative I took two random screenshots, that can be found within the same link from previous post. Take a closer look at the very top of the two, blue text on white background images where it says "Inventor".
And if you follow the assignments, you will discover that one of the two was actually patented by Igor completely independent of the company and later assigned as was probably sold to the company. And if you go to the bottom of each of those documents, you will discover the final Assignee, which represents the current rightful owner in full control of respective patents. Neither of which are Kronos advanced technologies.
Although as a senior engineer he played some sort a role in these patents, and is listed on most of the company patents as secondary inventor, I am not seeing: PATENT OWNER VLADIMIR GOROBETS, PHD DIRECTOR's name listed anywhere as inventor, let alone current owner/assignee any more than Kronos advanced technologies is documented current owner on any of the Kronos technology in the patent office's database.
And since a company can't license patents that they don't own. And Kronos entire business model is 100% reliant on full ownership in control of their own patented technology with a paid up current status at the patent office. To in turn, license said Kronos core patented technology to other companies for royalty profits, as is implicated in multiple locations of the most recent B.O.D. letter.
So yes this would seem to present a huge obstacle for the company to pursue large government contracts here.link to previous postthat clarifies ownership details of at least two of the claimed "company owned" patents. Its pretty much the same story all the way down the line and is all free to view on the USPTO database, if you are truly interested in the probable reality here. And until something changes on the USPTO data base or they present verifiable documentation to refute the USPTO's reflected status of all of their patents, facts are facts.
To demonstrate the probable reality here with a case in point of what they do or don't actually own. One really doesn't need to look any further than the first paragraph of the latest Airdog agreement PR and follow a basic lines of logic...
OK, So dumb question on my part here... Don't you find it a little peculiar that Kronos has licensed their own technology from another company instead of licensing Kronos technology to the other company? I mean, If Kronos owns, or controls the proprietary CORE technology utilized in this product agreement, shouldn't they be the ones issuing the license for the other company's opportunity to use Kronos technology in airdog product? Rather than receiving a license to pay royalty profits to Airdog, for the privilege of manufacturing and selling someone else's product that contains Kronos own technology in a globally limited territory? What am I missing here?
That said, given all this misleading information issued in the face of promised transparency by expert marketers and previous use of wordplay to bolster a reality, IE Dr. Gorobets historical position and horsepower, implicated current and fully owned status of historical technology, etc.
I would also question the actual terms of this supposed "exclusive" distribution agreement without explicit clarification from the company. A one liner from the same PR..
Outwardly, this whole PR seems to imply something wonderful, and a quick read would seem to imply that Airdog is now handing off the distribution of all it's north and south america wholesale accounts to Kronos. For a ready made high flow revenue stream. However the exclusivity attached to the agreement may only encompass the less desireable of two entirely different potential scenarios. The loudest siren I'm hearing seems to be the use of the word "and" instead of "or", in the above quote.
Strategically placed, the word "and" could actually be a limitation in stead of a freedom. For example, Kronos may only carry this exclusive distribution rights on a manufacturer recognized rebrand of airdog products possessing all three trademarks simultaneously. And not the seemingly implied entire airdog Americas inventory distribution channel, under the terms of the agreement.
Especially since AirdogUSA, already utilizes a very large ecommerce Global distributor to fulfill global wholesale orders. As a matter of fact, since the agreement included a defined territory, it may actually just glorify a territorial restriction; moreso than protect a territory from manufacturer competition of the same product under it's original x5 name.
Whereby airdog may have agreed to not allow other x5 re-brands in Kronos territory, but retain the right to their own distribution channels of the original x5 branded models in the same space. All the while restricting Kronos from selling their Kronos re-brand outside of the americas, in say China, India or Europe.
The word "or" on the other hand would have defined an absolute, within the agreement. Whereby any item marked with any combination of the three trademarks would require any sales of Airdog products sold anywhere in north or south America to first pass through the Kronos distribution channel for a percentage of sale.
So what is the reality? Don't know for sure, until it gets definitively clarified by the company, manufacturer, or we see sales or lack thereof reflected in future filings to support or refute it. And is something I personally have no interest in pursuing.
But, I would say, these are coming from china, most likely in 40 foot freight containers if they are bulk. And since a distributor is generally responsible for distribution logistics of breaking down a freight container into smaller shipments to wholesalers or retailers, which is how a distributor makes their money, it would seem a somewhat challanging task to take on, in a 500 square foot second floor office suite or a U-store locker, and I haven't seen any PR to indicate that they have secured a larger warehouse. If you have found evidence of such a company commitment, please share.
But given all the other nails in the KNOS tire and their track record of misleading information, I personally would tend to believe the former scenario, before giving credence to the latter. Not to mention, wholesale Lots of most all of Airdog's products are available and ready to ship on a Global distributor's website. And Although I didn't open an account to see if it fulfills, but when I put US, and Brazil as shipping destinations, it didn't deny my query as unavailable destinations.
And for any that read this and may be sincerely interested in knowing the current status of Kronos proprietary technology patents according to USPTO, as it pertains to info above. they are listed in the same order as they appear in the patent section of latest filing. And the link takes you directly to the USPTO database for individual patent status.
link to Patent 7,410,532 ; link to patent 7,262,564 ; link to patent 7,248,003 ; link to patent 7,122,070 ; link to patent 7,150,780 ; link to patent 7,053,565 ; link to patent 6,963,479 ; link to patent 6,937,455 ; link to patent 6,888,314 ; link to patent 6,727,657 ; link to patent 6,664,741
Recent KNOS News
- Form 1-A POS - • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/11/2024 08:49:44 PM
- Form C-AR - Annual Report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 10/01/2024 01:31:27 AM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 05/16/2024 01:39:10 PM
- Form 8-K - Current report • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 03/05/2024 05:59:31 PM
FEATURED ZenaTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZENA) First US Trial of IQ Nano Drone for Inventory Management • Oct 15, 2024 8:21 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Announces Strategic Progress and Corporate Evolution • KGKG • Oct 15, 2024 9:00 AM
One World Products Secures First Order for Hemp-Based Reusable Containers, Pioneers Renewable Materials for the Automotive Industry • OWPC • Oct 15, 2024 8:35 AM
CBD Life Sciences, Inc. Announces Strategic MOU with U.S. Armed Forces for Groundbreaking Mushroom Supplement • CBDL • Oct 15, 2024 8:00 AM
HealthLynked Files Non-Provisional Patent for AI-Powered Healthcare Assistant, ARi • HLYK • Oct 15, 2024 8:00 AM
ZenaTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZENA) Launchs IQ Nano Drone for Commercial Indoor Use • HALO • Oct 10, 2024 8:09 AM