RE: Sorry, I'm the link ... IP and new InterviewThanks Jeep. I think the analysis in my last post still applies. If in fact XCI patented its tech prior to SMY, it would be unlikely that the patent officer would have missed the XCI patent. Unless a mistake were made by the patent officer, and that is possible but unlikely, the patent officer must have concluded that there was no overlap between the two designs. This, of course, assumes (a) that XCI in fact has the IP it claims to have; and (b) that its patent was either issued before SMY's or that SMY registered first but with the unlawful advantage of ideas developed by XCI's and misappropriated by SMY. I phoned Gerry Wimmer and asked him whether the letter SMY received from XCI indicated which law firm was involved. I'm somewhat familiar with IP law firms and wanted to know whether a prestigious firm was involved. The response was interesting: SMY, apparently, did not receive a letter and whatever form of transmission which SMY received, it did not indicate that a law firm was involved. So its not clear to me how SMY was contacted; phone or e-mail, I suppose.
Moreover, on a second look at the Prospectus Statement its important to note that XCI is claiming IP over a MP system and not a MP/MF system. If XCI has the same MP system which SMY patented as part of its MP/MF patent, I would expect that the market would have been aware of XCI's system and that it would have made its way one way or another into applications such as pilot projects. Is that the case?
Today's market action certainly suggests that the market isn't worried about the XCI claim. Without knowing the details of XCI's claim, which, of course needs to be evaluated objectively, at first sight, it (XCI) appears to have an uphill battle. If it has a legitimate claim, then this would probably solved by a purchase of XCI's tech or the obtaining of a licence from XCI. If we get to this stage, there are enumerable possibilities.
One more unrelated point. Gerry sent out the following link to an interview done by Cliff with the Wall Street Reporter group.
https://www.wallstreetreporter.com/profiles/SAMSysTechnologies.html
What I found tantalizing in the interview was Cliff's discussion of visibility. I've tried to reflect Cliff's language as much as possible, though I have done some editing. The extract is based on one heck of a run-on sentence, where its clear to me Cliff is trying to balance providing some info but not too much. Here it is, beginning with a summary of the question posed to Cliff:
Ian Roberts:
Q. Milestones in 2204. What is on the horizon as a judge or benchmark?
Cliff Horowitz:
A. We are coming down to only one benchmark. Revenues.
Clearly at the point where the Industry, and certainly SMY in particular, has a level of visibility or levels of visibility or a granularity that we never had in the past, to the extent it was never clear in prior years precisely where the business is going to be coming from, I think the transition we have made is that we are now dealing in realm of specific opportunity; and we are able to monitor the conversion rate, we are able to establish our own metric such that we are better positioned to evaluate, if you will, come to grips with the progress being made on a project by project basis, such that what starts off as a very limited evaluation or pilot project ultimately graduates through the various phases into a wide spread and full scale implementation rollout.