Pluvia vs. Westergaard Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Biotech / Medical : Pluvia vs. Westergaard

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Thomas G. Busillo who wrote (816)	8/31/1997 7:01:00 PM
From: tmclyne	of 1267

Mr. Busillo: IMO, Westergaard has harmed his client, PLSIA. He has brought the truth of Pluvia's charges to a wide audience, including the issue of patent infringement. The issue of whether the company shipped working 9 devices or no working devices (Pluvia's claim) seems to be the hot button with some people. The point seems to be that at least 6 of the devices were non-functional because they were missing the essential component, the laser head. From what I can determine, Pluvia's claim seems the closest to the truth.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next