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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : MIDL .... A Real Sleeper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayne Plinska who wrote (1211)	6/22/1998 5:12:00 AM
From: Ed Hoftell	Respond to of 7039

Wayne, I guess my assumption has been ,if there was a patent right question,would not the inventors have filed a legal action long ago. Hopfully whatever problems remain ,are not terminal. ----ED

To: Wayne Plinska who wrote (1211)	6/22/1998 7:47:00 AM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7039

As a Private Investor Clean rights to the patents has not been established yet. If there exists contracts that support Arcon;s claim or John's or Dan's I have not seen them. If said contracts are in breech then that is also not conclusive because they could have a right to catch up on the royalties in the even of a default. If this and if that. If John has some patents or patents pending or patent applications I do not know for sure. If he can apply for patents without the original patents I do not know. If this and if that. Until all this is brought out by the attorneys I personally have to stick with the fact that there was certain things that had to be supplied such as the articles of merger documents, financials and due diligence at the time of merger which I am not privy to . Now apparently Midland's board has discovered a breech in the articles of merger which generated the rescinsion. Presently it is a wait and watch scenario to see what the truth is. JMO GB