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 : Research Frontiers (REFR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: N. Dixon who wrote (2032)	5/5/2002 2:15:19 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50245

I'm talking about 2002, not 2001. You know, the year they're actually projecting for? The year whose first quarter results were supposed to have been reported the week before last? I guess this "letter" is their idea of announcing earnings? Who's supposed installing all these windows anyway? It could hardly be InspecTech, which has given no visible signs of acquiring the additional manpower it would need in order to even be able to physically install 5000 windows in a month.

To: N. Dixon who wrote (2032)	5/6/2002 6:33:52 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50245

On an earlier topic: << No extrapolation necessary. The $37,500 in royalties is listed in the financials in 2001. Inspectech announced first sale in 8/01 so it would seem someone bought something. >> 'Taint necessarily so, as they say in the back country. 3.2 Minimum Royalties - Regardless of whether LICENSEE is selling any Licensed Products, during the term of this Agreement LICENSEE agrees to pay LICENSOR the non-refundable minimum royalties (in U.S. Dollars) specified below The actual amounts are deemed "confidential" and are omitted from the 10-K405, but why do I get the sneaking suspicion 2001's minimum royalty figures add up to oh, say, $37,500?