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 : IMDS nasdaq bulletin board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan O who wrote (3400)	5/24/1999 9:31:00 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4122

Assuming that I am naive enough to take all of your evidence as being true, what gives your triumvirate the right to be the IMDS judge, jury, and executioner. Is it that you feel the American court systems are unfair, and thus you have this right? Your statements are defective evidence that can lead to a conjecture only, one that is doubted by most board members who have nothing but praise for the technology. So keep this in mind as you parlay in your star chamber, that there are only two ways you can find vindication. Either the technology is given a chance to be tested and it fails, or it never gets a chance to be tested. But I think the court of public opinion would be best convinced by the former. So would any rational being. Your tortuous acts towards the Grables may be appropriate, except for the fact that the technology they are reportedly developing may help save lives. Either supply evidence that the statements made in the S-1 are untrue, or continue your uncovered vendetta under the burden that you may be causing thousands of lives.

To: Dan O who wrote (3400)	6/1/1999 7:37:00 PM
From: Andrew Abraham	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4122

Dan O, I just noticed that IMDS' Web site continues to claim that the company owns the CTLM patent. Dan, what's the truth about this? Have you (or anyone) gotten a copy of the patent from the U.S. Patent Office? From IMDS' Web site: imds.com CTLM Patent Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc. Has Been Granted Approval of the CTLM Patent with Additional 23 Claims ''The patent is expected to provide protection of many of the proprietary mechanical, electronic, and optical features of the CTLM scanner,'' said Richard Grable, CEO and a developer of the technology. ''The patent application was filed in 1995 and covered the discoveries made in the first year of the company's existence. IDSI has filed 8 additional patent applications since the original filing. These are also based on discoveries made during product development.'' The CTLM is a revolutionary device that uses innovative laser technology to produce three-dimension and cross-section images of the breast. It is currently being tested in the first phase of human trials under FDA approved IDE program. The testing will evaluate the clinical effectiveness of CTLM as a potential diagnostic tool that does not require breast compression and does not use x-ray. Patent Number Issued For Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc. FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Imaging Diagnostic Systems (OTC Bulletin Board: IMDS) announced today that the Company has received an issue of notification from the United States Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office for the Company's breast imaging device, the CTLMTM. The Patent Number is 5692511 and will be issued on December 2, 1997. Imaging Diagnostic Systems has developed the world's first breast-imaging device that utilizes state-of-the-art laser technology and proprietary computer algorithms to produce three-dimensional cross-sectional slice images of the breast.

To: Dan O who wrote (3400)	6/10/1999 9:32:00 PM
From: Dan O	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4122

Misleading Technology Statements: The concerns around the technology misrepresentations are as follows: 1. misrepresentation of material facts in prior annual reports regarding who owned the technology, including the 1997 patent 2. omission of material facts in prior annual reports including the fact that the most precious contract we could possibly have was not memorialized; 3. gross negligence in failing to memorialize that contract between the company and a major shareholder (Grable) until now with the resulting terms being substantially different than previously disclosed; 4. potential conflict of interest of management with shareholders (with shareholders losing the conflict); 5. serious risk of reversion of our main asset to Grable under very plausible circumstances. The main asset of the company is its right to use the CTLM technology. Grable's employment contract granted him a "development royalty" for his efforts in developing the technology. This royalty was disclosed in the 1996 and 1997 10ks, but no other obligations were mentioned. The Background sections of the 1996 and 1997 10ks refer to a patent that was applied for in 1995 and eventually granted in 1997. The '96 and '97 reports say that the company (not Grable) filed "its" (not "his") patent application due to advances made by the company (using company funds and company time). Never at any time was it represented that Grable was the owner of the new patent, in fact, the opposite was clearly stated. Never at any time was it disclosed that the company had any other obligations to Grable for the technology other than the development royalty disclosed in the 1996 10K. Now, however, footnote 9 of the 1998 10k states that GRABLE is the owner of the technology including the 1997 patent. Suddenly, the technology that INVESTORS funded through their contributions to IMDS was being represented as the property of GRABLE! Considering that the technology is our ONLY real asset, this sudden change was crushing to the common shareholder! The 1998 10k notes that Grable issued a license to IMDS to use the technology in June 1998 (technology the shareholder had thought already belonged to them). However, paragraph 13 of that license agreement states that the license can be revoked by Grable AT HIS OPTION in certain circumstances including bankruptcy (a legitimate risk for this company) or change of control. Not only was this not disclosed previously, but it actually results in a conflict between Grable and the shareholders. In a perverse way, Grable is better off if the company goes bankrupt, as long as FDA approval is received, since he would have all of the rights to the technology by himself. The 1998 10k and the 14C issued 10/29/98 make the admission that the patent license was not memorialized in writing with Grable until June 1998. According to the 14C, during the delay in memorializing the contract circumstances turned in Grable's favor, allowing him to negotiate more favorable terms, including: 1. Grable was granted an additional 7 million shares 2. The contract included a reversion clause in the event of bankruptcy or change of control 3. The royalty rate in his employment contract was doubled from a maximum of 5% to a maximum of 10% depending on the sale amount 4. Anti-dilution protection was granted to Grable. The company admitted in the public filing that Grable had a "fiduciary duty to the Company and its Shareholders to formalize, in writing, the oral agreement regarding the patent". This can only be interpreted as meaning that Grable was grossly negligent in failing to perform his fiduciary responsibilities by memorializing the contract only after circumstances moved in his favor. All of this pre-supposes that the Company did not own the technology in the first place which is a highly disputable premise based on prior public filings. Considering the fact that there IS NO SHAREHOLDER VALUE without the technology, these misrepresentations were egregious.