Frank,
"What would the board be found guilty of in this matter?"
That's what I would like to find out because I am not a lawyer and am not familiar with the law.
Let's say you and I are partners of a firm and you sold a patent to another company behind my back and kept it a secret. Eventhough I may be a minority shareholder, I still have the right to know what is going on.
" What business asks for shareholder consent on business decisions?
Doesn't Disney need their shareholders' approval for their CEO's bonus plan? Doesn't the merger of British Telecom and MCI require shareholders' approval from both companies? The patents awarded to IMS are bread and butter of the company and the selling of them are no small business decisions.
Well, if you don't agree what I said, then you should have no problem answering this question. Were you aware of this transaction when IMS decided to sell the patent to Tech Search last November? Simple answer: Yes or No. If you know about this transaction all along, has the company made any public statements about this transaction? Please don't tell me my comments are absurd unless you don't have any common sense.
Now, let's talk about you, Frank. I am sure you know what the board was doing all along. (I am talking about the transfering of the IMS technology to IPIQ) You said the board made all the business decisions and you have no part of it. You are just doing your job and that's perfectly ok. I also appreciate your posting of all technical details about this semiconductor business although I don't have the heck of an idea what a "macro generator" is. However, it is dead wrong for you to come on board to try to defend and justify the actions of the IMS board. Enuf said, I know you get the picture. |
