MediaG3 in a different light. This is the utterly, the most eye-opening single counter-post I've ever read in a response to MediaG3:
Will keep this poster anonymous((not bashing, I still believe in it, but this response really made me think))
I'm not sure how many PK or OTCBB stocks you've invested in or have watched, but it is very common for these companies to make claims that their technology was way ahead of the curve as an excuse as to why it has never been licensed.
I first heard the term "disruptive technology" in early 2000 regarding e.Digital's patented MicroOS. e.Digital made all kinds of fantastic claims about MicroOS possibly becoming a global standard OS for digital audio players and other small handheld devices. The stock made a phenomenal run in from .07 in Jan 1999 to a peak of $24.50 in Jan 2000 because investors believed it was going to be listed on NASDAQ. A small fund manager even bought it based upon the claim of disruptive technology.
The stock immediately dropped back and all the announcements they made implying that other large companies were licensing MicroOS were not coming to fruition. There were just always more new claims. The fund manager got out pretty quickly and stated that he realized that the tech was not disruptive. However, longs could not contain their excitement. They said (and those still around still say today) that they "believe in the technology." (Sound familiar?) But nothing ever happened with the technology and e.Digital, which had been living on stock and convertible debt for over 20 years, almost went out of business.
The company and message board pumpers kept claiming that the technology was way beyond what was needed for the simple digital devices on the market, but would show its significance as ever more complicated devices hit the market. Never happened.
They finally hired a law firm on contingency to file patent infringement lawsuits and got some early nuisance value settlements that allowed them to have one profitable year. However the stock was already so beaten down, that it didn't help the PPS. The current crop of defendants is taking the suit to a Markman Claims Construction hearing next month rather than settle for nuisance value. The strength of EDIG's claims will partially be shown in how the court construes the claims (broad as EDIG wants or more narrow as the defendants want).
Anyway, the point is that I have seen several OTCBB and PK companies make similar claims about their technology, most are now gone and I can't remember most (WAVX was one, but there were several others). I don't see MDGC's claim as credible.
As for the die-hard EDIG longs, many of the original investors are still posting daily about EDIG even though it's mostly hovered around .10 for the last 2 years. They still expect the technology to be proven to be fundamental to the use of flash memory in digital devices and that they will receive extremely large settlements from patent infringers.
Because they are intollerant of any negative posting, they moved the forum to agoracom where members can delete posts and ban other members just because they don't like the posts. They've kicked off many formerly prominent longs over the years who started questioning things. You can read the forum here. Virtually everyone who posts there originally invested in 1999-2000.
It seems you are still somewhat enamored with MDGC and I hope I'm not offending or discouraging you. I've just been around for a long time and have developed a strong intuition that I combine with research into the facts.
I'm going to sign off till tomorrow.
Have a good night.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
