InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

austin01

08/02/03 10:37 AM

#14587 RE: pengy #14586

pengy says, "I am still for this issue on the proxy. Yes, there are alternatives, but they are in no way advantagous to us as Shareholders from what I have seen."
The projected 4-8 month period to test the prototype is about up, why not wait until we get a report to see if a successfully-tested prototype can be used as collateral? Thus, not having to authorize so many shares and possibly saving unnecessary dilution.

icon url

rocket1010

08/02/03 12:53 PM

#14591 RE: pengy #14586

Pengy,

What are the stipulations to buy 144 shares?

Thanks, Ron
icon url

spokeshave

08/02/03 4:45 PM

#14600 RE: pengy #14586

pengy: Re: ...Cooper made the promise and not Ketch.

I have seen that excuse used any number of times, and for the life of me, I still cannot quite understand the logic behind it. Cooper, the CEO of the company made several explicit promises, including an FPGA prototype by the end of 2002, ASIC production in 2003 and meanungful revenues by June 2003 (two months ago). None of these have come to pass.

People tend to defend Ketch by saying that those were Cooper's promises. What I don't understand is why did Cooper make the promises in the first place? If they were bogus to begin with, then why is he still on the payroll as a director? Cooper either grossly misjudged the situation, or he outright lied to shareholders. Either one should be sufficient justification to get him off of the board.