Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Energy Conversion Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4191)	11/8/1999 8:36:00 PM
From: Michael Latas	Respond to of 8393

Patience Fred. I agree. I don't believe we should allow Ken Baker's leaving impact upon ECD so negatively. After all, we had our technologies long before he came on board. And, he had only been with us right at ten months. Life goes on. Furthermore, in fairness to Tyler Lowry, he is moving right along, having signed up his/our first OUM licensee in a lot less time than was anticipated. A reference was also made to "others". Let's give Tyler his chance. I personally have all of the confidence in the world in him and am simply tickled to have him heading up this joint venture. We are darned fortunate to have him. In selling any new major product or service it is always the first sale that is the toughest, in particular when you have "game-changing" technology. All of the other sales go much easier. And, I don't believe this will be any exception. This still doesn't take away from the fact that it was still a bummer to have Ken leave. However, at least for now he continues to remain on our board and will be available to provide consultation. If he is truly money motivated as was confirmed it would be in his best interest to keep his ties with ECD and our many different technologies. He really will stand to gain more by doing so. Let's move on. We have come too far not to. Regards.

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4191)	11/8/1999 8:44:00 PM
From: E Haiken	Respond to of 8393

If Ovonyx was able to get use of the world class facility they desperately needed & not give Lockheed any exclusivity, which you would have asked for ,if you were Lockheed, then maybe Ovonyx made a good deal.

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4191)	11/8/1999 10:38:00 PM
From: Ray	Respond to of 8393

Fred: "Also, if this is so blazingly hot and wouldn't need a dedicated fab but just space for a few extra processes in a clean room, where are the household names in chip manufacture?" I was not following ECD closely during the years they developed the solar cell technology and the battery technology and the DVD technology, but I suspect that essentially the same question was on the minds of many people with respect to these other (technically) successful developments. Some of the reasons that the "household names" do not get involved during the development phase are: Not invented here Not understood here De-stabilizing ideas not welcome here, hope you fail We can out-develop or out-market you, so why should we worry If the problems get worked out at your expense, we will just buy you -- cheaper that way We would rather spend hundreds of millions on our own risky research and development than pay you a decent royalty (irrational, yes, but not uncommon among bean counters) No one else has gotten involved with you, so there must be something wrong with the technology (Sarcasm off) The fact is that new technology and its applications are usually far better understood by the inventor/s, and others are naturally skeptical -- if not predatory -- in their response. This would not matter so much if ECD's technology was mainly for established markets rather than slowly emerging markets. (Exceptions: chip memories and barrier films).