Rod: Question re the info on the link you posted. Only early 1996
info was included re problems they had a year ago. Nothing was included (in depth as in posts that others have copied here) about the recall and lawsuit resolution anticipated this coming Monday, for which insurance will cover.
Nothing was included in this link about the NEW products and the COMDEX finalist status.
I suppport ALL credible/verifiable info coming onto the thread. It certainly helps with DD. My concern is that the "past" not overwhelm the future. If, in fact, the problems with program errors were resolved with a recall and $ settlement was/is being made to the satisfaction of both plaintiff and defendant, then would not the company be MUCH MORE CAREFUL that they have SUPERIOR PROGRAMS in the future?
Since insiders have the bulk of the shares, it seems somewhat illogical that they would not be doubly careful with the new programs.
Additionally, selection as Comdex finalist would seem to me that techies had thoroughly checked out the program BEFORE this selection. I have attended Comdex, perhaps you have to. If so, you are aware that those in charge are tops in their fields.
Does this Comdex product finalist status not, perhaps, better reflect the CURRENT status of the company's efforts and products?
Guess my concern is this: All companies have losers. Immediate recall and follow-up appears to have been the ethical approach. Therefore, what "credibility" issue exists?
Not trying to get into anything other than a novice investor's questions and discussion of logic here.
(Must go to bed now. Hope to read your response in the morning.)
Best regards,
Dorothy |
