Rick: I intended what I wrote and based it on YOUR allegations of fraud.
You quoted me as saying, the following, and ask if I meant what I said:
<<"The point you press that there must have been a misrepresentation contained in earlier pronouncements about dbExpress' stage of development and accomplishments if CCEE needs to tweak or indeed, revamp it after it is delivered, at this juncture, does strike me as sound.>>
Yes, I meant what I wrote, and I took it from the following statements of yours (appearing at--
exchange2000.com
Saturday, Oct 18 1997 4:34PM EST
Reply #7104 of 7119):
<<"Their SEC filings keep telling me:
>>>>>The Company has continued to incur significant
>>>>>expenses with respect to the development and marketing
>>>>> of its d.b.Express product technology...
Now for the purpose of this argument you tell me that you assume that they have to go back and reinvent the wheel that they told me they started inventing in 1987, and have already succeeded in applying to the BT situation. Seems like you are taking the position I have maintained for months. I DON'T BELIEVE IT. BUT.......
You rationalize why they might need money to 'invent the wheel they told me they had succeeded in inventing' and I ask why? They had the money from the 240 Million shares they sold before they
did a reverse split in 1994 to 60 Million shares AND they had the money from the 60-90 Million shares they have dumped since March of 1996 when they got authorization to issue up to 150 Million shares.
Gary you are the specialist in securities law but these claims sound 'MATERIAL' to me and if I buy your argument that they need
more money because those "claims" are actually false that spells 'FRAUD' to me. " >>[emphasis added]
Rick, in your post when you wrote "'invent the wheel they told me they had succeeded in inventing'", you were referencing my argument that money was probably needed to do the tweaking and revamping. You said, in essence, that you read the statements that CCEE had published about the money it already spent in developing dbExpress (INVENTING THE WHEEL) as necessarily being false if my premise of needing rainy day money is true.
I do not think your argument is good logic nor reflective of the facts. Indeed, since I posted, I received a quite informative e-mail from Steve Bergman in which he educated me about the fact that the dbExpress that uses the internet is an improvement on the hard-disk/cd rom concept CCEE originally sought to sell to telephone carriers and their customers. As such, in light of the constantly changing environment on the internet and new technology (browsers, Java, etc.), whatever CCEE spent its money on during the original development stage would need updating, regardless of how good the original product might be. Assuming Steve knows what he is talking about (and I am convinced he does), the basic program is quite innovative and valuable, but the change in the means of delivery (internet vs. hard disk or CD) would itself require a substantial outlay of funds by CCEE.
For these and the many intricate details of CCEE's deal with BT we do not know, I continue my disagreement with your assumption that the need to improve, tweak or re-vamp the product makes the earlier statements by CCEE material misrepresentations. They may in fact be false, but I have seen no reason yet to join you in that conclusion.
|
