Effective Control Transport Inc. (fka EFFC)

[PwAg]

Please explain how CRAM is a different technology than SDS? Not "because ECT told me so", but in a logical/technical sense. Without question, I can see getting around the SDS vs CRAM "hardware" issue (use a different IR camera, CMOS image sensor, DSP/PC to run algorithms etc compared to original SDS...old news), but reading the clause below located within the injunction renewed today (March 20th, 2008) by the court, how are they supposed to get around "a product copied, similar or being connected with the product called Système of Detection of Somnolence." It does not specify hardware, but "product" & "similar", which would include the core of the technology (aka algorithms), does it not? We were told a different story for quite some time that only the "hardware" (couldn't "look" similar per Claude Lemay's words prior to his departure) was the concern in court. This week both the bankruptcy and injunction against Farbos/Gib/Huppe are voted in favor of BCS. Are investors to believe that Farbos and Gib re-wrote/re-structured what was likely years worth of SDS software development into a format that is distinctly "non-similar" than the SDS software, all within the last 3-4 months? According to the ECT home-page, CRAM has been available for purchase for some time now. EFFC needs to make serious and honest clarification in this regard, because no amount of pumping by ignorant non-tech savy investors & shills will right this issue.

http://www.biocognisafe.com/doc/Jugement_Cour_Superieur_2007-11-21_BCS_vs_Huppe_Farbos_et_al.pdf
[12 ] ORDERS to the defendant Bruno Farbos not to work for one or the other of the defendants Raphaël Huppé, ECN Holding, Média City Corporation LLC or Effective Control Trucking LLC on a product copied, similar or being connected with the product called Système of Detection of Somnolence; [ 15 ] ORDER to the defendants Bruno Farbos, Egberto de Medeiros, Raphaël Huppé, ECH Holding, Media City Corporation LLC and Effective Control Trucking LLC to abstain from carrying out request, directly or indirectly, at Transport Robert and of the Customers under development, that is to say Groupe Liquid air of Canada and Transport Thibodeau Inc, in relation to the System of Detection of Somnolence or of a similar or identical product;"

Furthermore:
Why gag the TA?
Why does the newly acquired software company not have a name?
Why is the Argo hardware still pictured on the recently redone website, yet they no longer have a relationship?
Have about 50 other questions, but not wasting my time to be labeled a basher, hacker, shorter or loser by some resident clowns.