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.

Biotech / Medical : Chromatics Color Sciences International. Inc; CCSI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Irish who wrote (4389)	8/11/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Robin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5736

Irish, My main intent was to alert CCSI investors to information which might have adverse impact on CCSI and their ability to compete in the marketplace. Patents are frequently used to impede the ability of others to compete in the marketplace and often successfully so. The slightest threat of litigation can put a damper on any negotiation, even to enforce a patent with little or no technical merit (I have not yet seen the SPRX patent, so this is by no means to be interpreted as my assessment of the patent or it's merit). Whoever the manufacturing/distribution partner is that CCSI claims to be in discussions with will most certainly be taking a long look at this patent, and, most certainly, require another round of due diligence and negotiation. CCSI investors should assess the patent as well and determine for themselves what impact this patent will have (US patent #5,792,049). I will post the text portion here if anyone requests it as soon as I can obtain it. And Irish, yes, I acknowledge that the announcement of the patent did not have any great impact on SPRX price or volume. The big issue for SPRX is the impact of new international sales of the Bilichek in this quarter's report and progress on other products. As for Matt Black's comments on Jennifer's statements of last Friday, I challenge other CCSI investors to contact Jennifer and validate or repudiate Matt's accounting of the conversation (while I don't trust Matt, I still would like to see some substantiation of his account if it is credible). Then, if the deal does not come through, we can at least determine who should not be trusted (Jennifer or Matt) the next time this claim is made. Finally, Matt, according to your statement, is September 8 the date by which we should expect the deal to be announced? Is this per Jennifer and did she state this directly? If not, how did you come to believe this will be the date (gut feeling, other source, etc.)? What makes this date more credible than the others you have claimed? Why did the other dates not come to pass? Sorry for the difficult questions, but you made the previous claims, individuals may have been swayed by your comments, and you should account for why these previous claims failed to come about before your present claim can be given any merit! Rockin' Robin