I think you are trying to say or at least imply that there is not and never was a contract with philly marriott? If this is so, and I have no evidence for sure either way, but I do have evidence that a tivus system was installed by Mr Prakash and company at that hotel. Lets evaluate that for one moment. If I am Mr Prakash, and Philly Marriott says sure come on and install your system, why would I do so without some indication that they were going to pay for it, even if it was at a cut rate price below profit level to get the name out there? (Not saying it was, just asking a question). If I am philly Marriott, why would I allow some yahoo to come into my hotel and perform an installation that is going to render my my rooms unusable for a time without a contract that he is going to do what he promised to do? I can't fathom being party to any kind of dealings like either side without a contract identifying what each party is responsible for. Who would spend the kind of money to lift a satelite onto the roof of a downtown city tall building with a helicopter, just because they want to see a helicopter flying over their head? As a practical man, I just don't reason how any of this could occur without a contract. There are laws against announcing a contract when there is in fact no contract. If this is the case why is prakash not in jail? I will agree with you that it seems fishy that details were never released, but in my mind I can logically establish some reasons why not releasing details would infact be reasonable ( at least for a short period of time). If I make you sick, then that is just an issue you will have to live with, or do something about, but if you in anyway are trying to assume that I am trying to get others to invest here, when there is a block on the movement of all shares, then you my friend are sadly mistaken. Although there was a time that I saw a future in Tivus, today I wouldn't recommend this pinky to my worst enemy. I still believe that there can be future for this technology, and I have faith, as small as it is, that this idea is good enough to turn around. I think the people here, myself included at times are tuff on prakash, and while you all have a right to state your opinion, without facts, they are all just opinions. Stating an opinion without supporting evidence is no more a fact or disprove some other persons statement. Basically, if you post an opinion, but I can find no evidence to disprove it, it does not by default become anything more than a Theory at best. Only evidence and supporting facts make statements factual and therefore "facts". For example, just because you say there was never a contract, doesn't make it so unless you have proof or evidence to back up your statement. The burden of proof is not on me or anyone else, and furthermore the fact that I can disprove it doesn't make it fact.
