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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: N. Dixon who wrote (9656)	5/4/2003 2:57:19 AM
From: RockyBalboa	Respond to of 10293

*What's important is that SPD is in mass commercialization and the revenues will be in the 100s of millions.* Here it is Sunday morning and I have a good laugh.... Where are those fine revenues? Am I blind? Are they hidden in "joint ventures"...? (the refr reports repeatedly show revenues only in the 300 to 500k range). Do they really talk Dollars (or have talked they about Yen or Rupiahs)? And even if a sort of commercialisation works out, this Rambus-alike tax on the highly competitive, commoditized product does not pay out any millions (Nixons description is again unclear and misleading. Do not confuse gross product revenues for spd-equipped glasses with license revenues to the refr company. For starters, its like confusing gross revenue with net income). So, granted that the possibility of the commercial potential exists, the odds that it turns in 100s of millions (USD assumed by myself) can only be very remote.

To: N. Dixon who wrote (9656)	5/4/2003 11:29:47 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Respond to of 10293

would that be for the longest period of time avoiding bankruptcy while not making a profit Isn't that lie getting a bit old now that SPD is commercialized? Okay, Nancy, I think you're officially losing it here. Where in that statement above are you hallucinating a lie? Did all of you just listen to billwexler or are all of you billwexler? Neither, of course. To some extent we listen to Bill, but we also use our own common sense. And here is what our common sense tells us. It is somewhat extraordinary, but not wrong in and of itself, to be involved on a project of such an extreme length. It is more troubling to compare the state of the technology at the start of all those years, and where it is today, and see so little visible improvement. But what is completely inexcusable, and for which I defy you to find even one similar example among the notable inventions of our time, is to use the claim of being on a long-term project as an excuse to live off their own private tap into the public dole without any attempt to make the project self-sufficient. Edison had many other projects while working on the light bulb. Ford worked for Edison. Haloid Xerox sold photography paper. The Wright brothers had their bicycle shop. It is a common denominator of every great inventor that they did SOMETHING for a living while working on the thing that would ultimately make them famous. But not Saxe and Harary. They do nothing, and yet pay themselves quite handsomely for it. How difficult would it be for them to open a little store, maybe a Pella franchise, and use that as a base for their marketing of SPD? Just think, they could answer SO many of the critics' questions. Where can you go to see SPD in action? Right there. Where can you go to ask questions about the technology? Right there. Where can you go to get a price quote? Right there. Where can you go to buy the stuff? Right there. But NO...! I know why they don't do that. Because that would be taking responsibility for the success or failure of SPD products, and that is one thing that Saxe and Harary have consistently avoided doing. Thus the needlessly complicated supply chain whose entire purpose is to permit REFR to deflect everything and anything about SPD away to someone else, except the theoretical royalty checks. This is not an acceptable state of affairs. More later.

To: N. Dixon who wrote (9656)	5/4/2003 1:48:55 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Respond to of 10293

We don't care if we're just the enlightened few who know what we own. So then, you would agree with the statement that many of your fellow longs are wasting their time complaining about so-called manipulation on the part of the shorts, and are showing that THEY don't know what they own? Because that crowd has to be getting to be a real embarrassment to you. I mean, when it gets to the point where they see a bid/ask volume of 1x1 and declare that "clear evidence of manipulation", it's time to start calling for the men in white suits.