@downsideup
Very glad to see someone sees it the same way I do.
I almost feel like I am stealing when I use this technology on my phone via t-mobile and get it for free. Or when I use someones wireless router via UMA in a rural area to make calls and get internet access but than again I'm not the one who stole it or put it on my blackberry. I am still very surprised (shocked)that the judge ruled receivership as if you just wiki the definition it is of MOST EXTREME situations that a judge shall rule for it. It is my opinion that he should have seen the facts presented and ruled in that manner where you have two insiders doing everything they can to put the company on track and stop the suppression, infringing, lawsuits, ect.. and than you have the outsiders day trading, inside trading, and derailing the company.
How or why he could NOT see that and rule in the defendants favor by dismissing the case based on testimony is beyond me. Why he didn't hold and scold DW for he was the one who petitioned in 08' for a shareholders meeting in the first place yet failed to conduct one in 4 years is beyond me. I could go on and elaborate the extreme efforts, deferred pay, and monies put forth by the two officers inside the company only to be dismissed by the Judge but that would lead me to make insinuations and attack his character which I prefer not to do.
AI
