InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

elliot1234

06/17/07 4:44 PM

#124259 RE: beam11 #124258

Beam, I always respect your judgement because of the experience that you have.

If you are right then there will be no settlement because the big players will not allow it.

Therefore, if there is a settlement, would that mean that the big players were not involved?

Regards,

Howard
icon url

dlethe01

06/17/07 5:47 PM

#124260 RE: beam11 #124258

Thank you beam11. I really appreciate to hear your comments on this topic.
icon url

early retirement

06/18/07 12:03 AM

#124279 RE: beam11 #124258

Beam -
I'm curious how you can conclude so matter-of-factly that "This case will stop the others". Are you suggesting that the SB v. Neom infringement case is the end-all litigation suit encompassing any and every possible future infringement? Do you not believe it possible that there will be other companies or different technologies/methods of circumventing Neom's "Bridge" that will be tried in future litigation?

p.s. I believe you mean "pawn", rather than "pun".
icon url

in4it

06/18/07 7:09 AM

#124291 RE: beam11 #124258

Hey Beam, I am a firm believer in what you are laying down. Now how do we put you in front of William Hoffman?

If the other VC'S are backing SB, and, NEOM owns the patents, why are the VC's there??? Why are they backing a company with NOTHING???

It only give the bigger players a chance to keep walking all over NEOM in the future!!!! It will keep NEOM in and out of the court system looking for settlements, and spending what ever income to stay alive.

Take it to the end and prove it!!!!

Hell, we waited this long, WTF??