The 16 point Liebowitz Fax Part TWO
And the ruling states
"Therm Tech [is ordered] deliver to the plaintiff all "standard certified engineering specifications", including design drawings, regarding thermophilic plants" as per paragraph 16 of the original ruling.
> 8. HOW THIS MANUAL COMPLIES WITH THE
> LICENSE AGREEMENT. Thermo TechTM's Design
> Criteria Manual provides as Trooper's own expert, Mr.
> Harlan Kelly, admitted,everything about the process
> necessary, not just "reasonably necessary," to utilize
> the licensed process and build plants.
Here it seems quite clear, however, given the rest of the document, one begins to wonder what Mr. Harlan Kelly really said and "admitted" to.
> 9. WHAT DR. DAN CUMMING DID TESTIFY TO
> IN COURT ON MAY 21st. Dr. Dan Cumming testified
> that the subjects of the new patent are not Improvements
> of the old patents for which Trooper holds a license. No
> one, by the way, has ever claimed that International Eco-
> Waste Systems Inc, ("IEWS") has now or ever had a
> license to anything of Thermo TechTM's. He testified
> further that the new patent encompasses learning relating
> to the configuration of the
> plant and equipment that apply a thermophilic process
> in a commercially feasible way embracing numerous
> proprietary, and now patented, combined technologies.
Ok if I am to understand correctly, while both TTRIF and TPP are supposed to reciprocate in handing documents that Mr. Liebowitz himself interprets that TPP must disclose "any improvements that [it] might make to get the process into commercial usage." But apparently what applies to TPP doesn't apply to TTRIF even when explicitly stated as such.
> 10. WHAT DR. DAN CUMMING DID NOT TESTIFY
> TO IN COURT ON MAY 21st. Dr. Cumming did not
> testify that the new patented process was not a thermophilic
> process, nor that the old thermophilic process was not
> in part reflected in the new plants to be constructed in
> accordance with the new patented learning.
Again, are we to take Mr. Liebowitz's word on this? It seems to be pretty much recurring that we shareholders and watchers of the company alike, are expected to take the interpretations of TTRIF whoeleheartedly and ignore their many contradictions. TPP had to put the agreement online. TPP posted the rulings. I expect that TPP may also post the transcripts online. Too bad TTRIF thinks so poorly of the literacy skills of its shareholders that it must digest and filter any and all information out for its shareholders first.
> 11. WHAT MR. ROSS AND MR.KELLY TESTIFIED
> TO ON MAY 21st. Both Mr. Ross and Mr. Kelly testified
> that the Design Criteria Manual was suitable and sufficient
> as a basis for drafting plans, "design drawings" in Mr.
> Lunny's accurate phrase, to build a plant to utilize the process
> licensed to Trooper. Mr. Kelly took longer to reach this
> conclusion since he had never seen either the License
> Agreement nor the Court Order, but he got a letter from
> Mr. Lunny directing him to conclude that Thermo TechTM's
> Design Criteria Manual was not a collection of construction
> plans, something which no one has ever denied.
<yawn> And yet "design drawings" were Justice Cohen's words as well... at least according to the transcripts.
> 12, WHY TROOPER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
> LICENSE AGREEMENT, Trooper violated the provision
> of the License Agreement, section 8.03(e), which prohibits
> it from allowing, let alone aiding & abettng any other person
> or company including allegedly wholly-owned subsidiaries
> - which we know IEWS was not - from utilizing or attempting
> to utilize the subject manner of the License Agreement
> without having that entity sign an identical License
> Agreement for the protection of Thermo TechTM. Why
> did Trooper, as recently as March, 1998, and many times
> before refuse to have IEWS sign such an agreement? What
> were Trooper's real plans in Poland and elsewhere? Why
> did Trooper Poland liquidate in November, 1997? Trooper
> also violated two other substantive sections of the License
> Agreement granting rights and options and notice to Thermo
> TechTM Technologies Inc. which were abrogated, if
> Trooper's press releases can be relied on.
"Which we know"?!? Where did this come from? IEWS is a subsidiary of TPP. Mr. Liebowitz may wish to think otherwise, but that does not change the facts. If that is what TTRIF is hoping for to win their lawsuit -- somehow that strikes me as amusing. Does a subsidiary controlled by a parent company need to be required to sign another agreement? A country that signs a pact does not require each of its citizens sign it. It's interesting that Mr. Liebowitz brings up the events as to the signing of the non disclosure agreement, for at that time, the confidentiality agreement written by TTRIF that TPP did not sign was replaced (signed by TPP and imposed by the courts), by an agreement that was not nearly as restrictive written by TPP.
> 13. WHY THERMO TECH'S LAWSULT FOR A RULING
> DECLARING THAT THERMO TECHtm HAS VALIDLY
> TERMLNATED TROOPER'S LICENSE AGREEMENT
> IS A WINNER. There is no defense to the fact that IEWS
> holds no License
> Agreement with Thermo TechTM, that it has no other
> right to use Thermo TechTM's intellectual property,
> and that Trooper violated the express, unambiguous
> provisions of the License Agreement by aiding and
> abetting IEWS in trying to build Thermo MasterTM plants
> in Poland, Trooper will lose this lawsuit and will be held
> for damages to Thermo TechTM in Eastern Europe and
> possibly elsewhere resulting from Trooper's Eastern
> European and Canadian, fiasco.
Again, there is a defense if IEWS's parent holds the License Agreement. For such shoddy work, it seems incredible that Mr. Liebowitz is so certain that TTRIF can win an a lawsuit.
> 14. WHY INTERNATIONAL ECO-WASTE SYSTEMS
> INC. HAS NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER TO BUILD
> THERMO MASTERtm PLANTS. See paragraph 12.
See my comment for paragraph 12.
> Absent a License Agreement from Thermo TechTM,
> no one may use Thermo TechTM's patents, trademarks,
> or know-how. This is why the court in Poland will grant
> Thermo Tech's application for an injunction against further
> efforts of International Eco-Waste Systems Inc. to market,
> permit, finance, or build Thermo MasterTM plants in Poland.
In order for an injunction to be granted, it must first be filed. And is the license absent? I can claim that the sky is purple, but that does not make it purple. On what grounds will TTRIF void the agreement if the one supposition that it bases its argument is not true?
> 15. WHY THERMO TECHtm'S PRESENT INITIATIVES
> WILL PUT AN END TO DISPUTES ABOUT THE
> "PLANS" OF ANYONE CONNECTED WITH STAN
> LIS TO BUILD THERMO MASTERtm PLANTS IN
> EASTERN EUROPE.
> Thermo TM Tech has: a) fully complied with the License
> Agreement, as of six (6) years ago;
Hmmm... it seems some people -- say the Courts would not agree with that.
> b) fully complied with
> the Judge's Order as of 2 months ago;
To be decided.
> c) Trooper has come
> no closer in any discernible way to having any more
> contracts for supply of raw organic waste, any more valid
> final permits for building plants, nor having adequate
> financial backing than it had when it licensed the Process
> from Thermo TechTM.
TPP may not have contracts and it has never stated that it has. What it has claimed is that it has letters of intent.
> IEWS is no one but a stranger to
> the License Agreement, the Process, Thermo TechTM, or
> any other source of any right to thermophilic technology,
> Trooper has violated its License Agreement and Thermo
> TechTM has validly and effectively terminated it. IEWS is
> about to be enjoined by the courts in Poland; Trooper and
> IEWS are being sued here for violations of the License
> Agreement and damages flowing from that; the Court has
> already thrown out the contempt proceedings against Rene J,
> Branconnier personally. And what other future does
> Trooper have? A several year lawsuit against Thermo
> TechTM to prove what? That it is not entitled to anything
> more than it already has? Or finally to prove that its
> monumental failures in Poland, dating back several
> years now, can not be laid at the feet of anyone other
> than Trooper?
Actually the Court has not dismissed the contempt proceedings against Rene Branconnier, but merely postponed such a proceeding to a later date. In a few ways I believe TPP was to blame for some of its delays. However, being a starting company, that's normal -- but they didn't lie about their mistakes. More recently however, given that TTRIF has not been forthcoming in the court ordered documents, how can TPP be blamed for all their woes?
> 16. HOW TROOPER IS -- AND IS NOT - LIKE IBM.
> For Trooper now to suggest that, after it did nothing with
> its licensed technology for six years after receiving it and
> the implementations of it provided for in the Design
> Criteria Manual, it is entitled to all of the broad, unique,
> different, innovative and indeed just new1y patented
> know-how which Thermo TechTM has rigorously
> dedicated itself to developing in the intervening years,
> at great expense, is like IBM now asserting a right to
> own WindowsTM 98 because 12 years ago it licensed
> DOS from Microsoft and sat on its duff while Microsoft
> rigorously and successfully dedicated itself single-mindedly
> to developing a superceding operating system. Are
> Windows 98 and DOS both computer operating systems
> comprised of varieties of code? Of course. Are Thermo
> TechTM's patented Thermo Master Mark II plants
> implementations of thermophilic know-how? Absolutely,
> as Dr. Cumming tried to make clear in between leading
> and slightly askew questions from Mr. Lunny, who after
> all had a case to "prove." Is Trooper entitled to new,
> different, unique, just-patented technology under a
> six-year-old License Agreement? No. Trooper is no
> more entitled to Thermo TechTM '98 than. IBM is to
> WindowsTM 98, and nothing in the License Agreement
> or in the court Order suggests otherwise. The important
> difference between Trooper and IBM of course is that
> IBM has whole other enormous businesses to run; Trooper
> apparently has nothing but its lawsuit to do.
Did IBM's agreement with Microsoft involve its entitlement to all future improvements to the code? Were the initial designs of Windows Operating systems? No. They ran on DOS. Were later versions of Windows built on DOS? Some yes, some no, but it was new code as Win95 is a true OS. Is this comparison relevant? No. Is Microsoft like TTRIF? No. So why did Mr. Liebowitz bring this up? That I do not know. What does IBM have anything to do with this anyway?
> In sum, the Company is confident that anyone having
> read this far is of good faith regarding the facts,
> recognizes that the facts are more bulky than is suggested
> by the misrepresentations in Trooper's superficial press
> releases, and that the facts support the simple and
> inevitable conclusion that the Company's positions,
> as set forth above, shall in all respects be validated,
> acknowledged, and proven, because they are true.
At this point, all I have after reading this far, is an urge to giggle uncontrollably (unfortunately that would seem rather undignified). Not to mention that after having read this far, I feel a certain amount of disgust at the thinly veiled attempts at manipulation by Mr. Liebowitz.
Guessing that Mr. Liebowitz will be reading this: here's a suggestion, start reading the Agreement, past TTRIF newsreleases, and the subsequent rulings in FULL. Then if you have time, read TTRIF's own IR package which needs "cleaning" -- at least for consistency's sake -- but that does not apparently seem a priority at TTRIF.
> Certain statements contained herein are "forward
> looking statements" (as sack term is defined in the
> Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995).
> These statements are based upon the belief of the
> Company's management, as well as assumptions made
> beyond information currently available to the
> Company's management. Because such "forward
> looking statements" are subject to risks and
> uncertainties actual results may differ Materially
> from those expressed or implied. Such "forward
> looking statements" include but are not limited to,
> competitive factors, general economic condition,
> customer relations, relationships with vendors,
> government supervision and regulation, product
> introductions and acceptance, technological changes
> in industry practices, and other factors discussed in
> filings made by the Company with the Securities
> and Exchange Commission.
Need we say more?
Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme....
Clement |
