SPOOZ Inc (SPZI)

[Imperial Whazoo]

It has been said many times that great prudence was involved in NOT using the version of SpoozToolz that got entangled legally due to the alleged theft. The logic behind these posts is the idea that a claim of ownership was being decided as a matter of law, as one of the key issues involved in the lawsuit. So it would have been presumptive to have proceeded with use of the former version of the software and then to have had it happen that the court rules that Spooz does not have the title it claims. This would have been a pretext that allowed the accused thieves to "own" Spooz, as a result of a lawsiuit decision involving ownership of the software under question. The point being that, if you use the software and its not yours to use, then the profits from it are owed to those owning it; hence you loose your company (or a large chunk of it, anyway).

Now, project the same postulate onto the Bloomberg info that got posted on the website. If there is a threat from a lawsuit by unknown folks (accused of theft) with no legal muscle compared to Bloomberg, does it even need to be debated that Spooz could end up handing Bloomberg title to all its work if the posting on the website mentioning Bloomberg is bogus? The very idea that the posting is bogus is an idea that, logically extrapolated, necessitates the conclusion that Paul Strickland intends to hand Bloomberg title to our company. On the face of it, this is as absurd a notion as is the idea that the world is flat! IMHO, of course.... but lets all try to have enough mental mass about us so that we don't act like helium balloons and float off into the sky when the balloon string slips from a child's hand. I mean, really.

Imperial Whazoo