SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Andrew Abraham who wrote (2974)3/28/1999 2:45:00 PM
From: Dan O  Read Replies (2) of 4122
 
Moolah on Raging Bull mentioned that the patent is in Grable's name to protect us from hostile takeover. There are other ways to do that besides ENRICHING ONE OF THE FOUNDERS AT THE SHAREHOLDERS EXPENSE. Remember, protection against takeover is what MANAGEMENT wants. That is not necessarily what the investor wants. Poison pills are rarely for the shareholders benefit.

Whose name the patent is in is less relevant than the BENEFITS he is paid for it. Had he received the patent in his name and granted an unconditional lifetime license without the "take back clause" and the extra, never before disclosed compensation, the story would not be so bad.

Again, why was a poison pill chosen that so obviously ENRICHES GRABLE at the other common shareholders expense if it was the common shareholders he was trying to protect?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News