porscha: I will do my best not to force you to don a hard hat...
so if your premise of NVEI funding the finishing of the powerstream technology is true they've done it on a shoe string budget.
In the last two years, they have spent a total of $5.5 million. Some of it was cash, and some of it was shares. Either one was shareholder equity - they are one in the same, since any cash comes from the sale of shares. So, all tolled, ANI got $5.5 million worth of "value" from NVEI shareholders. Whether that paid off ANI debt, or went straight into the ANI coffers, the effect on the balance sheet is identical. The bottom line is that for $5.5 million, so far all we as shareholders have gotten is a nice little briefing saying Powerstream has just been completed and that they are now working on Embarq. I still don't understand why that doesn't bother you.
Here's another thing that I don't understand why it doesn't bother you. We were led to believe that NVEI was developing a technology (called Embarq) that incorporated elements of PowerStream, but was wholly different. Now it seems that all Embarq is (rather, will be) is PowerStream ported for phone line use.
I also don't understand the lack of outrage over the fact that, although NVEI has an "exclusive" license for PowerStream, the license does not exclude the two other companies to which ANI has licensed PowerStream for use in phone line broadband. How can Ketch possibly say, with a straight face, that nobody has anything close to the speed of Embarq, when two competitors have the same "core processing power".
Are you also aware that the licensing agreement with ANI prohibits Rim from using PowerStream for cable or wireless? How many times has the company made statements that the technology could be used for these as a future growth market?
We have all been led to believe that NVEI was developing its own Intellectual Property, perhaps based on some elements of ANI-licensed technology, but still wholly different and wholly belonging to NVEI. I can't begin to count the number of times that the company has referred to "our technology" or "our capabilities". Now, it is clear that the only IP that they ever really owned was Cu@OCX, and they gave that back when they figured out it was worthless.
I just don't understand why, in light of these rather astounding revelations, rather than discuss these issues, you choose instead to parse my every word, looking for a loophole that you can catch me on, so everyone else can say "Gee thanks for setting the record straight, porscha", all the while, completely ignoring the real issues.
Instead of searching for that minute detail that you might think I am wrong about, why not discuss those things that we both know I am right about?
