SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Tri-Vision & The V-Chip -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 4:33:00 PM
From: Bill Chyplyk  Respond to of 5743
 
So WHERE's THE PRODUCT??...you know like in Where's the Beef??

Why don't you focus on the real issue TZ? Who's going to be first to market and generate revenues to bolster balance sheets?

All this report nit-picking is leading nowhere. Which is the more speculative play here ACRI or TVL....whose PRODUCT is the consumer going to purchase???

Answer DES question...who's going to buy such old ACRI technology??

Correct me if I'm wrong....weren't you long on TVL once, then Short on TVL . Are you now confessing all along you have been LONG on ACRI?? DES has been very open and honorable about his investment train of thought....we don't have a clue what yours is nor your credentials...maybe you could enlighten us a bit about your background if you want us to believe your arguements are credible!
What color are your glasses?? BROWN?????? What's your full time job?



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 6:23:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Respond to of 5743
 
More answers for you:

TVL's lawyers: Canadian - Daley 7 Byers
US - Kenyon and Kenyon (NY).

They have infringement opinions on approximately a dozen different patents already filed and all are positve in the fact that TC's aproach, design and mechanism is novel and does not infringe on any of the system's that others have developed.

As for covering the extension on Elam, I don't know, but the extension doesn't change the general scope of what Elam is all about anyway. I would doubt it would change any opinions.

Now, some more questions for you to answer.

1. Why did the CEO of Soundview call TVL up well over a year ago looking to do a JV?

2. Has Soundview been invited to any large OEM's to discuss technology aspects and licensing like TVL has?

3. Do you know if all the encoding software (written by just a few guys) will work with Soundview's system. TC helped the major player in this field design if. They supply all the major networks, cable companies and broadcasters. It's already in their production suites?

4. Has Soundview ever built a meaningful number of boxes to test their system? If so, where did they test it and how did it work?

So, you now have the answers to all your questions. So far, you've been proven wrong that Ingram has no agreement with them. It has been shown that Ingram is rather excited and really behing the whole push. Furthermore, Ingram already has expressions of interest from many of their clients --some quite large and in your very neighborhood I'm sure.

Hey --I give you all the credit for making a few quid on the short side of this one. But there is absolutely no truth to most of your statements, your insinuations have been proven wrong and you keep touting a patently absurd company that's massively overvalued and looks like the biggest hype-job ever seen.

Where's Alan to help you on these questions? Probably dumping shares as we write.



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:04:00 PM
From: Graham Dellaire  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5743
 
Careful TZ, the cracks are beginning to show.

How did the nursery rhyme go?... "all the kings horses and all the kings men.."

G.



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:07:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Respond to of 5743
 
From the filed prospectus, reviewed by lawyers from all sides.

On the Marketing agreements:

"Management expects that the majority of the sales in Canada of the ViewControlTM V-Chip Decoder will be made through local cable companies, who, pursuant to the CRTC Policy, will be required to make products incorporating v-chip type technology available to their customers. The Company currently sells its products to all of the major Canadian cable operators, with sales to the three largest of such operators accounting for 51.4% of the Company's sales in fiscal 1997. Management of the Company believes that its established relationships with the Canadian cable operators will be of significant benefit in connection with the distribution and sale of the ViewControlO V-Chip Decoder in Canada. In addition, the Company has signed a letter of intent with Beamscope Canada Inc. to effect the distribution on an exclusive basis of the ViewControlTM V-Chip Decoder to wholesalers and retailers of audio/visual equipment, computing devices, software and consumer electronics in Canada.

The Company intends to introduce the ViewControlO V-Chip Decoder in the United States under the trade name V-GIS, with distribution to be effected through local cable companies, mass merchandisers, major electronics retailers and catalogue retailers. In this regard, the Company has signed exclusive distribution agreements with Ingram Entertainment Inc., targeting retail sales to consumers in the United States, and with TeleWire Supply, a division of ANTEC Corporation, for the distribution of the ViewControlO V-Chip Decoder to U.S. cable operators.

The Company will also attempt to develop and sell and/or license ASIC devices and the V-Chip Technology to other manufacturers of consumer electronic products used in connection with television viewing, such as converters, VCRs, satellite receivers and digital video disk players (DVDs), for the incorporation of the V-Chip Technology into their products.

--The point is, if TVL wants to, they can use other distributors if Ingram doesn't live-up to the agreement. Yes, TVL could also not live up to their end of the agreement. That's why one has contracts. TZ's point is silly.



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Respond to of 5743
 
Also from the prospectus, they specifically define the term they use throughout ("V-Chip Technology") as the very specific system developed by TC, not some all encompassing, generic V-Chip --just TC's system. Don't confuse the semantics in the prospectus.

The canadian Imperative:

Once again from the prospectus:

"The Company intends to effect the distribution of the ViewControlTM V-Chip Decoder to cable operators in Canada through its own sales force and believes that its established relationships with the Canadian cable operators will be of significant benefit in this regard. The Company currently sells its products to all of the major Canadian cable operators, with sales to the three largest of such operators accounting for 51.4% of the Company's sales in fiscal 1997. In addition, pursuant to the CRTC Policy, Canadian cable operators will be required to make products incorporating v-chip type technology available to their customers. It is anticipated that the ViewControlO V-Chip Decoder will also be available through Canadian cable operators on a rental basis. These decoders would be purchased from the Company by the Canadian cable operators. Canadian cable companies have committed to the CRTC to make v-chip type technology devices available to their customers at an affordable price

Who's going to get these sales, I wonder? Soundview?............................NOT



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:17:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Respond to of 5743
 
Read the 4th paragraph --"....if granted...." TVL HAS NEVER MISLEAD ANYONE ABOUT THIS FACT.

"Rights to the V-Chip Technology

The rights to the V-Chip Technology were transferred by Timothy Collings to a partnership between Mr. Collings, his wife and Simon Fraser University. These rights were again transferred by the partnership to Canadian V-Chip Design Inc. ("CVCD"), a private corporation owned by Mr. Collings, his wife and SF Univentures Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Simon Fraser University. On March 19, 1997, all rights to the V-Chip Technology (other than the related trade-mark and patents (if granted)) were transferred by CVCD to V-Chip Canada Enterprises Inc. ("VCCE"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVCD. The trade-mark and patents (if granted) relating to the V-Chip Technology were licensed on an exclusive basis by CVCD to VCCE at that time.

Pursuant to a licence agreement dated May 9, 1996 (the "Canadian Licence Agreement") between CVCD and TVE, CVCD granted to TVE the exclusive Canadian rights to use the V-Chip Technology in television converters, for a twenty year term.

On January 14, 1997, CVCD agreed, in principle, to grant to the Company the worldwide rights to use the V-Chip Technology in connection with the design, development, manufacturing and sale of specified products. Formal agreements providing for the grant of these rights (which supersede the Canadian Licence Agreement) were executed by VCCE, CVCD, TVI and TVE on June 10, 1997 and, as amended by agreement effective December 30, 1997, contain the following terms and conditions:

 VCCE (as the purchaser of the V-Chip Technology and licensee of the patents (if granted) and trade-mark rights from CVCD) granted to TVE an exclusive sub-licence in respect of the trade-mark, a sole sub-licence in respect of any patents and an exclusive licence with respect to other intellectual property rights relating to the V-Chip Technology to enable TVE to design, develop, manufacture, market, distribute and sell the V-Chip Technology in specified products anywhere in the world for a twenty year term.

 The specified products include (i) television converters (which includes the ViewControlTM V-Chip Decoder), (ii) "Other Devices", which are defined as electronic devices which contain the television converter circuitry and/or functionality, together with audio or video record, play or display capabilities, including televisions, video cassette recorders and laser disk recorders and players, and (iii) certain ASIC devices.

 VCCE and CVCD retain all rights to the V-Chip Technology not specifically granted to TVE pursuant to the agreements.

 The consideration paid to VCCE for the worldwide rights to the V-Chip Technology was comprised of: (i) a cash payment of $200,000 paid at the time of execution of the formal agreements; (ii) a $1,900,000 promissory note issued at closing bearing interest at 4% per annum, calculated monthly, with principal and interest payable on the earlier of October 1, 1997 and 10 days after the completion of the next public offering or private placement of securities by TVI (which date has been extended by agreement of the parties to no later than April 15, 1998); (iii) the issuance at closing of 3,600,000 Common Shares of TVI; and (iv) a fee in respect of each individual sale of a product containing the V-Chip Technology, payable monthly, the amount of which varies depending on the type of product sold. The 3,600,000 common shares of TVI issued to VCCE have been placed in escrow and are to be released based on the cash-flow generated by the V-Chip Technology. See "Escrow Arrangements".

 TVI guarantees the payment obligations of TVE under the promissory note.



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:27:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Respond to of 5743
 
Office Rental: US$ 4.00/sq ft. in Markham Ontarios --a fast frowing suburb --I would hardly call that exhorbitant.



To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:27:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Respond to of 5743
 
TVL, also, had a larger firm pass on the accounts in the prospectus.

AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Directors of Tri-Vision International Ltd./Lt‚e

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Tri-Vision International Ltd./Lt‚e as at March 31, 1996 and the consolidated statements of income and retained earnings and changes in financial position for the year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tri-Vision International Ltd./Lt‚e as at March 31, 1996 and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial position for the year then ended in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

All other consolidated financial statements were audited by another Chartered Accountant.

North York, Ontario Truster Zweig
June 4, 1996 Chartered Accountants




To: trenzich who wrote (2981)6/3/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: D.E. Shetland  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 5743
 
As for you continual question over the value of the license --it's meaningless. It's an intangible asset that no bank would ever lend against anyway. Also the written-off or amortizatio of it is a non-cash item.
FROM THE PROSPECTUS:

".Measurement uncertainty:

In January 1997, the Company entered into an agreement in principle to acquire the exclusive worldwide rights to the V-Chip technology for a period of 20 years.

As partial consideration for the acquisition of the V-Chip technology, 3,600,000 common shares were required to be issued to the vendor. At the time that the agreement in principle was entered into, the quoted market price of the Company's common shares was subject to significant price volatility and placing a value on the 3,600,000 shares issued to acquire the above rights was therefore very difficult. After careful consideration, an amount of $2.20 per share was used. This equated to an amount shown for share capital issued of approximately $7,920,000 which, when added to the debt issued of $1,900,000 and a payment of $200,000 cash resulted in a total cost of $10,020,000.

The Company intends to continue to assess the ultimate recoverable amount for the rights to this technology and, if circumstances require a reduction in the unamortized cost, a write down will be taken."

Simply put, they paid CVC for the licensing rights to their IP with shares of the company, some cash and a note. At the time, the shares were around $2 a share --that is the ascribed value for them. I would imagine the shares are escrowed dependent on one or more patent's being granted. Clearly, over time, it will be amortized --since it's a 20 year license I imagine that would be the max. I would guess that as you "use" the asset to earn (hence neccessitating some "cost" to be assigned) it will be adjusted accordingly. If they can't sell any ASICs or the like and the marketing life of decoders is estimated at only 6 years, then they'll probably amortize it over fewer than 20 years, and most likely 6. Who cares, they can write it off now if they want, there's no cash flow effect whatsoever and it will serve to lower their tax rate. Of course, you'd have a hard time proving that something you just paid $10mil for has changed in value that quickly. (Only Acacia seems to get away with that one.)

They will always have to show that some stream of income is coming in due to that license --hence costs must be associated with the depreciating assets. There's no tomfoolery going on hear. They are just stating that because the share price was volatile, one could have ascribed a value of $5mil or a value of $15mil. Then picked an average. Most likely, they discussed a total $ amount they were willing to pay and it was the share amount that was the fudge factor, not the price. No matter what, it was going to be around $10mil on the balance sheet.

As an intangible asset, one shouldn't consider this in it's book value. Of course a biotech or software company would say your crazy, but frankly it doesn't matter since TVl is unleveraged and has more cash on the balance sheet than they know what to do with.

They state it very honestly, they will continue to monitor the recoverable value of the rights" --They have to.

Don't you wish Acacia would monitor the recoverable value of their voraciously cash-sucking investment.

Acacia would love their balance sheet.