Here is what CEO says:
As I have some time constraints (like trying to fit in 5 hrs of sleep <gg>, I will post (and pose) your questions to Mr F on Prodigy and post his responses here. BUT, you must start your post with "Mr F," so I can quickly spot it as a question for him, copy it, etc.
Now, more off of Prodigy:
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 05/28 06:58 PM
Board: MONEY TALK
Topic: THE MICROCAPITALISTS
Subject: SPEAKOUT! GIFT
To: QLUV88A Nam Shim Date: 6/5/96
From: ZRAU57A Arnold Freilich Time: 7:46AM ET
Hi Nam,
As we're all aware, stock price is a combination of
different factors. Basically though it is set by the market
based upon earnings and earnings growth.
I see E-data as an unknown Internet company. To this point
we have not had earnings. What would the stock be worth if
we were to begin to report earnings? What would our PE be
because we are an Internet company? How would people
perceive the market cap if we invested earnings in digital
commerce applications that had great growth potential?
Frankly, I do not know the answers to these questions, but
if we are right, they are questions that might have to be
answered soon.
We have not been contacted to date by anyone wanting to
acquire E-data. We are involved in conversations about
investing revenues in Internet applications but are not
involved in conversations at this minute about acquisitions
for stock.
Arnold F
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 05/29 05:05 AM
Board: MONEY TALK
Topic: THE MICROCAPITALISTS
Subject: SPEAKOUT! GIFT
To: LVQV78A Mel Spivak Date: 6/5/96
From: ZRAU57A Arnold Freilich Time: 1:22PM ET
Mel,
There have been several reporters talking to us lately. I
understand there have been blurbs on Reuters, IBD and
others. We all know about Traci from Bloomberg.
ComputerWorld just ran an article in its 6/3 edition
although I have not seen it yet. Infolawalert on the Web
just ran a story. The Newark Star Ledger just ran a story
and I spoke to a reporter from the SF Daily Journal (a legal
paper).
We have been contacted by several reporters and editors from
national media. I will be a guest on a syndicated radio
show called Internet@Night (www.night.net) on 7/7. I will
advise if we find out that any of the national media has a
story scheduled.
Frankly, I can not wait for the day when reporters stop
talking about whether the patent is valid and they start
writing about its ramifications and types of transactions
that are infringing.
As to Court, I will personally be present. It is possible
however that the Judge will grant a postponement because of
a conflict cited by one or more of the defense attorneys. I
will keep you advised before Friday.
Arnold F
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 05/29 05:07 AM
Board: MONEY TALK
Topic: THE MICROCAPITALISTS
Subject: SPEAKOUT! GIFT
To: CNGC22A Bill Keating Date: 6/5/96
From: ZRAU57A Arnold Freilich Time: 1:59PM ET
Bill,
As I just mentioned in my reply to Mel, I have not yet seen
the 6/3 ComputerWorld article. If you have it please fax it
to me at (201) 866-1102. Thanks.
What is a "nuisance suit" to a $3 billion company? The
article implies that we accepted token settlements, but they
have no idea what those settlements were. Frankly, we are
not trying to frighten smaller companies into anything. Our
patent is valid. If they want to license, they will. We
will continue filing lawsuits after Amnesty is over on 8/31.
If smaller companies license or settle because larger ones
have, then that's their prerogative.
IBM licensed the patent - remember they didn't settle. We
never sued them nor had the need to do so. IBM had been
studying this patent since early 1994 and they chose to
license in 9/95 even though they stated that they were not
infringing at the time. They said that they might in the
future. One of the clauses that they insisted upon was
confidentiality.
Adobe chose to settle the litigation. The infringement we
found for Adobe involved the sale of fonts on locked and
encrypted CD-Rom. We saw no sales of software over the Web
by Adobe. Adobe offered a settlement proposal which we
negotiated and accepted. Again, the terms and conditions
were to be kept confidential.
I think that people should look more towards all companies
rather than just the larger ones for purposes of evaluating
the potential revenue. The schedule in the Amnesty
agreement is useful there. There are many companies with
under 100,000 in annual revenues who are infringing. These
include publishing companies who now offer their articles in
digital data form through various resellers. Yes, there are
large companies too, but each of those licenses is subject
to individual negotiation. One will have nothing to do with
another.
I know that there are many people who are critics of the
patent. They ask: How can this patent be granted when the
use of the system it describes is so widespread? They say
that the patent is broad.
One must recognize that the patent was issued before any
infringement existed. Even 2 years ago, there was virtually
no infringement. Is the patent broad? No, the
interpretation is narrow. At least that is what one would
have thought when reading the patent just 2 years ago. Why
the change? Because they are reading the patent in 1996
when there are many companies now beginning to utilize the
claims.
Sorry, I can not get my arms around the potential at this
point either.
Arnold F
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 05/29 11:31 AM
Board: MONEY TALK
Topic: THE MICROCAPITALISTS
Subject: SPEAKOUT! GIFT
To: ZRAU57A Arnold Freilich Date: 5/29/96
From: LVQV78A Mel Spivak Time: 5:21AM ET
Mr. F: The inability of anyone to get their arms around
the potential is what is so awesome here. I think all of
us here would love to join together and give you one big
collective hug for recognizing this, a leading the way
despite all of the countless "nay sayers" "non-believers"
that you have found in every step of the way, and continue
to find.
If my old buddy who is a patent atty who was with IBM at
the time had not confirmed the patent's validity to me, I
probably would have also been a "non-believer". Mel
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 05/29 11:31 AM
Board: MONEY TALK
Topic: THE MICROCAPITALISTS
Subject: SPEAKOUT! GIFT
To: LVQV78A Mel Spivak Date: 6/6/96
From: ZRAU57A Arnold Freilich Time: 11:16AM ET
Thanks Mel.
I must admit that sometimes it is difficult to deal with
"non believers." (as you put it).
For instance, I was talking to a reporter. He asked me why
I felt that we were entitled to licensing revenues even if
the patent was valid. I told him that patent law protected
inventors. The law guarantees that inventors receive fair
royalties for their inventions when other people utilize
them commercially. Itold him that we were asking for what
we believed were fair and reasonable amounts.
He then asked me how I would answer critics who say that we
are offering low cost licenses only so that people will
realize that it is cheaper to license than litigate. I told
him that he was putting me into a no win situation. We
offer low cost licenses because we are not greedy and we do
not want to interfere with anyone's ability to make money.
We only want a fair share for our shareholders. Then we are
accused of doing so only for devious reasons.
Sometimes you just can't win!
Arnold F
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 05/29 11:32 AM
Board: MONEY TALK
Topic: THE MICROCAPITALISTS
Subject: SPEAKOUT! GIFT
To: ZSRA63A John Hood Date: 6/6/96
From: ZRAU57A Arnold Freilich Time: 8:58PM ET
John,
Since your note originally addressed the 6/7 Court date, I
thought it appropriate to post again to it.
The attorney for Library Corp.,one of the defendants,
requested a postponement from the Judge because of a
conflict in his schedule. The Judge granted it so the
pre-trial scheduling conference is now set for 6/21 at 4PM.
It is important to realize that this is not a key Court
date. The only thing that will happen is that dates will be
set. The only importance it has is that the defendants will
now have to start spending money on their defense.- Arnold F |
