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 : GALTECH SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS CORP. (GTSM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mahatmabenfoo who wrote (278)	2/20/2002 7:08:41 PM
From: gammaray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 394

I will try to explain what I meant by, "They lost a significant portion... but in reality they lost nothing". I should have said for more clarity: "They lost a significant portion... but in reality they lost nothing of real value". Before Magpower potential sales generated by the patented carousel motor accrued to Galtech in total. After Magpower potential sales accrue by % of sales as designated per the terms of Galtech/Magower agreement. Literally "they lost a significant portion" by giving up a portion of sales to Magpower. However, in reality, they "lost nothing" because the motor was in disrepair and it had a slim to none chance of being restored by Galtech as I detailed in prior posts. The reality of the situation is that Ewing, the original inventor of the carousel and chief engineer at Magpower, has a chance to make the carousel a success. With Magpower there is a greater chance for Galtech to cash in on the carousel technology. I understand your contention that nobody owns the patent. I assume that Magpower hired a lawyer to search the patent. It would be gross negligence for a lawyer to not question why Galtech was not the assignee on the patent. I further assume that the lawyer did question entitlement and that he/she found that Galtech was the rightful owner of the patent.