Microphonics Inc. (mrps) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Microphonics Inc. (mrps)

MRPS 0.0001000

0.0%

Dec 4 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Joe-MA who wrote (2980)	3/11/1999 11:33:00 AM
From: Joe-MA	Read Replies (3) of 8189

MRPS attorney reply.... As a follow-up to a conversation with Mr. Gayle on 3/9 - post #2980, I was put in touch with the MRPS attorney to clarify some matters. Below are his comments based on my notes - nothing verbatim. Re. Mr. Roche of CTRL Systems, Inc. email to several of us. He is unaware of any such claims being made legally against MRPS. I am sending him the Roche email and he will look into it with the purpose of squashing any untrue assertions. Re. trademark rights in general: He states that any trademark ownership is determined by both registration (we know MRPS applied for and was granted registration for ULTRAPHONICS trademark in 1997) and by use (we also know that MRPS has been actively using this name). case closed IMO. Re. Rozzi and Russo matters (Russo of IB fame 1.4mill) and Rozzi of recent selling 270,000? share fame. The Russo matter is pending with NASD (as we already know). The Rozzi matter may not be pursued further - may not be worth the cost and trouble at this point. (My comment: any recoup of $ or shares will be a positive to MRPS. And there are no more negatives here since shares have been sold- Case closed IMO.) Re. original IPO - with IAIF - Interactive Information Solutions_ He was not around when this was done in 1996? but his understanding is that IAIF was at the time an existing entity and that rather than go public by itself(Ultraphonic N.A. precursor to MRPS) they chose to go under the IAIF shell. This entity was reorganized into MRPS and he has no knowledge of any lingering liabilities, etc. existing from that original shell. Case closed IMO I think the above should answer that shorter's comments from the other board as well as any open questions some of us have had here. As the attorney stated to me - in the four months he has been the corporate attorney, whenever any issues have arisen, they always have been resolved in favor of Jimmy and MRPS. Now, back to further contracts and rising stock price. Joe-MA

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next