SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : MIDL .... A Real Sleeper
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Oscar who wrote (1907)7/3/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: Ga Bard  Read Replies (2) of 7039
 
OH You dang skippy ... I feel we as shareholders have paid more than money but also the emotional stress of a marketing plan that made this DF-144 known. The plants that should come from this marketing and exist on an engineering table and the patents associated with such plants regardless of whether it is the original patents or any re-engineered patents or offspring belongs to all shareholders associated with this product.. I feel that because for months we have been told these patents were assigned to Midland because of moral obligation promised those patents would be assigned to Midland that we hold rights to said patents.

Further more I feel no attention would have come to said patents nor any recognition would have either nor any possible funding nor financing without the Midland marketing scheme at shareholder's expense. As we have all been told the Plant that is at Maverick is the plant we have been trying to get built by buying private placements, exercising warrants etc. That plant and its patents I feel should be part of Midland for it is not Midland shareholders fault the money was stolen.

So yes Oscar I agree 100% and I await the outcome of the friendly negotiations.

That is my opinion on this matter. Of course I want the funds and stock to bought back also taken by the known individual and affiliates.. And I will give my view also that any shareholder of any corporation associated with the develop of this octane additive should also be entitled to a claim to it. I do not care because shareholders, (regardless of the corporate name) paid for the entire develop of this product.

Now you know exactly where I stand and I am very adamant about it also.

GB
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News