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 : Presstek -- Stock of the Decade?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nanny who wrote (7761)	1/10/1998 5:21:00 PM
From: Thomas J Engelsma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

An unrelated read(now that we haven't seen a large spread on PRST for more than 6 months) but worth the read none the less. businessweek.com businessweek.com Later, TOM

To: Nanny who wrote (7761)	1/12/1998 9:54:00 AM
From: Pierre Panet-Raymond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

"I think we've just discovered why Pierre isn't posting a copy of the lawsuit settlement on the thread. He never posts things in favor of Presstek! <<<The suit has been settled in favor of the Company.>>>" I have it on a Word file but when I try to paste it to this reply it will not appear. I will email it to Tom. They are all identical except Hollingsworth's states "dismissed without prejudice". In any event they don't say anything. The editorial only came after the fact from the company. Why don't they state the particulars of the settlement. If the consideration received by PRST was $1, they would be able to state "The suit has been settled in favor of the Company."

To: Nanny who wrote (7761)	1/15/1998 6:04:00 PM
From: Pierre Panet-Raymond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

Nanny, I have searched all over for this release but could not find it. It looks from the bottom like it came from the web site but if you check there you will see that it has been removed. Wonder why? I have a call in to the magazine to find out how I can see a copy. I will let everyone know what I come up with but probably not until some time on the weekend due to meetings outside my office. Curious.

To: Nanny who wrote (7761)	1/19/1998 11:37:00 AM
From: Pierre Panet-Raymond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

Nanny, please note the significant change in the News Flash when you go to the following site now versus what it stated when you visited it on June 10th and copied it to SI presstek.com Why the change from "The suit has been settled in favor of the Company. (emphasis mine)"? to: "The suit has been settled. The details of the settlement are confidential" Curious! I have been trading phone mail with Paul McDougall of DPX, and it does not sound like they had received anything in writing from PRST as of Friday Jan 16. BTW Nanny I trust that you had PRST's permission in writing to post that news Flash given their stern warning about not copying anything from their web site! presstek.com The reason I could not find the item initially was that it is not listed under news releases, the logical place to look, and was not on the PRnewswire service. To recap, Why the change from "settled in favour" to "confidential"?