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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rich who wrote (8891)	2/6/1998 3:38:00 PM
From: Stoopid	Respond to of 20681

Rich raises a very interesting question. I, too, would like to hear comments... ci

To: Rich who wrote (8891)	2/6/1998 4:01:00 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Rich, <<"'Jimmie John doesn't understand that the procedure that Johnson is selling him as patentable is indeed un-patentable'...any comments?">> Mr. John does not have to know or understand the procedure until after Naxos has performed sufficient due diligence. When he has all the facts he will know for sure and I for one wouldn't want it any other way. So what's the problem, Mr. Rich? Is there a final contract signed giving away the store for fluff? Is anything etched in granite? Has the fat lady sung? Does this guy have a leg to stand on or a name he can call his own? I think not. I asked Jimmy whether the process was patentable just yesterday. He said that Johnson believed that it was. Big surprise! He said that there were other opinions that it wasn't. Another big surprise? It would seem so to some people who can't even get their own name straight. The important thing is that it works on our ore. Find just one shred of evidence, rumor or flighty suspicion that demonstrates anything else. Jerard P

To: Rich who wrote (8891)	2/6/1998 4:49:00 PM
From: knight	Respond to of 20681

Rich, I think one has to keep Matts' comments in perspective. He's closely associated with one or more competing DD's. I use the term "competing" as in "competing for investor interest". It would be in his best interest to make negative comments about Naxos. Looks to me like he is following J Taylor's example. Hell, who knows, maybe that's all there is to the J/L methodology, but I think there's more to it than what Matt stated. I believe the upcoming pilot plant testing will be monitored by an independent engineering firm, so we'll have to wait and see what their determination is. Quite an interesting story, all things considered. knight

To: Rich who wrote (8891)	2/6/1998 5:11:00 PM
From: GlobalMarine	Respond to of 20681

Rich: I find Matt to be a Pit Bull attacking anyone who would mention anything negative about his beloved IPM and other DD investments he holds, not to mention attacking other DD companies to help place his in better light. <<Any mining engineer in the world will tell you that that process in not patentable. Now ask yourself WHY did Jimmie John not know that?? Because he doesn't know anything about the mining business.">> Opinions vary as to whether the process can be patentable. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. So what do you do? If the process looks promising, you have a choice between paying for the rights and using the process, and not paying for the rights and using the process hoping that it will not be successfully patented by Johnson because he would then sue you for patent infringement and you could lose the ability to use the process. Jimmy has a responsibility to maximize shareholder value, and if this process appears to be the only one that can unlock the secrets of FL, if he pays up, he can use it, and if he doesn't, he may possibly wind up without the right to use this recovery process and the stock will be back at $1. Given the two alternatives, Jimmy John is doing the right thing to acquire the rights if he evaluates the process to be effective and efficient, IMO.