Marcus:
Let your hopes rise when you see millions of shares trade a day, not hundreds of thousands. I do agree that volume has been putrid
Regarding your question, Nothing that I know of has been written about the performance of the "Comparator 5000) at the CTST in Atlanta in May 96. I have seen no benchmarks or comparison tests on the machine shown in 96 vs. any competition.
If anyone lurking has any information they'd like to share... :)
I do remember reading a few comments in the WSJ alluding to it (the 5000) being made from garden-variety components (my words) and its performance was nothing extraordinary.
I didn't give any weight to the article as it was written, for a few reasons:
1) The article was not written to focus on the product, but the representative company, and its troubles...
2) The article did not imply the company produced an uncompetitive product, but merely stated that there was nothing extraordinary about the machine that was on display.
Presently, without contractual agreement with the technology holder, the company is definitely a shell, with alot of baggage being toted.
The challenge is in whether the company can successfully shed the baggage and negotiate working, mutually acceptable agreements with the technology holder, and to CSC.
One could argue that with Comparator showing the holder's equipment, an implied agreement was in place, with contractual paper pending.
But one could also argue that since the equipment was sold to the company for display, the holder is choosing to keep his profits separate from the companys, allowing only for a potential distributor relationship to be cultivated.
Sooner or later, we'll see things happen, or they'll disappear.
Regards,
Larry
|
