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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Tracker Corporation America (TRKR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SAM-DAN who wrote (1731)	3/24/2000 10:00:00 PM
From: Mahatmabenfoo	Respond to of 1877

First you say this: > Gee ,what changed your mind-Charles Nothing changed my mind. That's a pretty lame attempt to find contradictions. It won't work. Watch. First, you quote a post of mine, in which I say: > Even if TRKR were to break even on the Florida deal, it'd > justify a great increase in stock price -- because right now, > there is no Florida deal, only the hope of one. Right -- because if anyone would actually USE TRKR's system, then maybe someone else will use it. That's still my position. What you somehow fail to quote is the rest of my message, which pointed out that TRKR's unwillingness to settle a measingly $120,000 dispute with the police chiefs was a big indication that the deal is not worth $20 million, or, as you say, a multiple of that. TRKR has not come through on the Florida deal it said was already in place in July 1999 -- not in its most recent press release, not otherwise. Let's look once again at TRKR's July 1999 press release. Just a sentence will do this time: <<Under the partnership, Tracker will install Tracker(TM) Systems in up to 1,000 Florida police departments and schools and train personnel in Operation Bicycle Identification.>> See? TRKR says it WILL install and train. But its new press release only indicates cooperation toward selling -- which, sure, could equal your fabled multiple of $20 million. But based on TRKR's history which I have recited, it is more likely to equal ZERO. What we know for sure is this: TRKR is no longer promising that it "WILL" install anything. If none of that matters, explain this: if the Florida deal is worth $20 million, why did TRKR's fabled new management let a $120,000 dispute hold up the deal for months and months? > TRKR needs to prove its technology works in > the field -- not only technically, but in practice. Exactly! So we agree on something. One difference between you and me is that, since TRKR has been trying to prove its technology since 1995, I give up. I don't believe it's ever going to happen. You still have faith. Well, more power to you. > First correction - if you really are a lawyer Tchh, tchh. I already told you that the way to keep me quiet is to not insult me. I already gave you and this list a free lesson in patent interpretation -- you really ought to be more appreciative. Maybe you won't be dazzled in the future about a company's prospects just because it has a patent. Here's another free lesson, and a big secret: most patents don't mean anything. At least a third of them are overturned when anyone tries (and TRKR's has NOT been tested in this way). And of the rest, most NEVER produce a cent of revenue -- they're too easy to get around, or do something no one cares about. But companies love to get them because it impresses the stockholders, and gives them hope. Wise up. > Tracker hired staff to train the police in using this > equipement When? How many people? Are these people still working for TRKR now? If you are correct, then TRKR can at least be said to have faith in its future, and to be trying to make sales. So maybe it has a chance. But it's had chances before -- and bigger ones than it has now (see my 2 part email). And nothing gets around that its most recently reported revenue for six months was $54,000. Gawd! > The patent issue revolves around the issue of > retrieval and return of items to their rightful owners. > This was upheld by the courts Now this is where you go too far -- that's just flat 100% wrong. Try to get this: TRKR was the DEFENDANT in a patent lawsuit. It was accused of being an infringer -- it was never asserting its patent against anyone. And that's based on TRKR's own press release. There are a few circumstances in which a patent could be "upheld by the courts". Here's 2 examples: - if TRKR was a plaintiff, suing someone for infringing its patent, and TRKR's patent was held valid against the defense that it is not; or - if the Patent Office re-examines the patent, holds it invalid, an the courts send it back to the Patent Office. But that's not what happened. Nothing even close. TRKR was a DEFENDANT in the only lawsuit I know about. You still claim otherwise? Give me a citation. > and is why the police have entered into the agreement with > TRKR. Police in various places have been supporting TRKR since 1995 -- about 4 years before its patent issued. A lot of good it means. > and other such aids to the companies involved... > These latter functions are of course not patented exculsively No, no and NO. Business functions are not patented to TRKR AT ALL. It's a method for protecting PERSONAL POSSESSIONS. I've already explained this, and given you the URL to the claims in TRKR's patent. Being wrong is one thing, but persisting in giving misinformation about this is really outrageous. > 1995 was eons ago in the history of this company Sure. But I gave information about 1997, and 1998 and 1999. > Time will prove whether we are right or wrong. Absolutely correct --- and good luck to you. Really -- I have no interest in TRKR long or short as of this morning. But you ought to understand the patent issues before repeating incorrect information about them. I don't even really care about that EXCEPT if you keep challenging me personally, I'll keep answering. - Charles

To: SAM-DAN who wrote (1731)	3/24/2000 10:44:00 PM
From: Mahatmabenfoo	Respond to of 1877

PATENT LAWSUIT: REVEALED Okay, you keep talking about what was "proved" about TRKR's patent in court. So you get more facts. Well, there's no reported decision about it -- whatever the courts decision was, it appears not to be published. All we know is what TRKR put in a press release on May 20, 1999, which is quoted below. As I have indicated, it merely says there was an infringement decision AGAINST TRKR (see my previous post as to the signifcance of TRKR being a defendant) and that it was dismissed. It doesn't say why -- it could have been because the plaintiffs felt they had no money to win from TRKR. Or because TRKR convinced the court that for its sake the lawsuit should be held in Canada. Or because TRKR said in a brief it doesn't do anything, so it could not possibly have made, used or sold anything that concerned the plaintiff. Or because the plaintiff Datastrip decided to focus on Symbol which (I would guess) is the real target of the lawsuit -- you know, the company with money. The suit against SYMBOL went to trial. But whatever is the reason for a dismissal, it was not a lawsuit about TRKR's patent and has NO bearing on the validity of TRKR's patent. None. And TRKR does not even claim it does -- not publicly or openly, anyway. TRKR's own press release suggests strongly that the lawsuit affected ALL users of SYMBOL's "PDF417 bar code symbology". One other part of TRKR's press release requires comment -- it says, like TRKR always says -- that TRKR's technolgy is the "undisputed leader". Am I the only one who finds that hysterical? How can it "lead" if it doesn't have any operations? Leads what? - Charles ================ PR Newswire May 20, 1999, Thursday SECTION: Financial News DISTRIBUTION: TO BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY EDITORS HEADLINE: US District Court Dismisses Datastrip Lawsuit DATELINE: TORONTO, May 20 The Tracker Corporation of America, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TRKR) announced today that The United States District Court for the district of Delaware has dismissed the infringement case against Tracker. Subsequently, a jury found that Symbol Technologies, Inc., (NYSE: SBL), a co-defendant in the action, did not infringe any of the asserted claims by virtue of its use, promotion and sale of PDF417 bar code products. Bruce Lewis, the CEO of the company, said, "We are pleased that the U.S. District Court has dismissed this patent infringement case against Tracker and that consistent with our long held belief the jury concluded that there was no basis for infringement as against Symbol and other users of the PDF417 bar code symbology. Now, we can get on with our business without this roadblock and focus on implementing Tracker's business plan making Tracker's technology the undisputed leader." ====================