This is not how a stock price reacts in anticipation of increasing revenues.
Have yet to see a national marketing piece targeting the consumer for either magic sky control or other spd glass applications by any licensee, including RFI themselves.
Need leadership to stand up and show their shareholders that they believe in their technology and will support those shareholders by carrying the fight to the markets, instead of coming up out of their safe hole to sprinkle some fairy dust and disappear again until the next time.
Quit using their operations model (this is not a business, yet) to make excuses and blame others for the years of shortcomings.
Stand up and take responsibility for their mistakes and failures, as many of us have done,, as well as teaching our children to do the same. Just maybe you will be looked upon in a better light by your shareholders.
Thanks for the recommendation to dig in to the data, You must have seen this recent ViewGlass press release:
"To date, View has installed more than 150 projects, with more than 100 additional projects currently in development."
And just how many does REFR have? We know of that temporary one in Europe, but the challenge still stands. Anyone, dig in to the data and find one SPD architectural glass installation in the US. Come on longs, you must know of one.
REFR...can your glass do this? (get installed on a permanent architectural project?) View Glass and Sage Glass can.
REFR management share of total operating expenses is excessive given their long term performance. And let's just skip over the stock options and overseas junkets.
SPD is a real product with no significant sales. Check the latest SEC filings.
Growth in sales and income tends to be an ever moving target.
Management emphasizes that REFR has no debt, which is true. However REFR has had extensive dilution over the past several years. Without dilution the current price of the stock should be about $15/share. This assumes the same basics that cause REFR to sell at
Sorry have been buried in work and just now looking over the decision. Will try to have something tomorrow or the next day.
Saw on SI board a question about Brownian motion. It's the random motion affecting SPD and EPD particles when an electrical field is weak or absent.
It causes SPD film to be dark, and EPDs to agglomerate inside their capsules so they're no longer readable as electronic ink. It's been a big problem for E-ink, but I'm not sure it has any bearing on the ruling.
Should just put out sign "Wanted #$%$ apply within"
In REEFR land Chumps always looking for other Chumps to help bail them out of their ma$$ive Lo$$e$
Sentiment: Strong Sell
The decision is available on the website of the US District Court of Delaware. It has mixed results and I do not have enough scientific background to be able to construe it well. Perhaps others do and can help?
For one thing, the Court distinguishes between SPD light valves and EPD units and says that EPD units are not included within the scope of the SPD patent. Apparently, E Ink uses an EPD process. That , however, is not the end of the story, as it seems that the EPD process itself could infringe on the use of the polymer matrix in the film.
The Court next adopts the E Ink definition of the term "light valve" as a unit that controls the transmission of light by first being suspended in Brownian movement and then opening to transmit light when an electric charge is transmitted. I don't know if this is a markedly significant factor in favor of E Ink, in that I don't know if E Inks capsules don't operate by Brownian movement etc.
The rest fo the definitions seem to favor RFI's positions. It seems significant that the SPD emulsion reflects heat. It seems significant that the particles come in contact with the polymer matrix within the film and that the Court seems to agree with RFI that a capsule itself, (such as E Ink's?) could form part of the polymer matrix that is dispersed in the film.
I am left with the impression that an EPD capsule (like E Ink's?) may operate differently than a SPD particle but that the EPD capsule still has to operate within the composite matrix within the film and could thereby infringe upon the matrix suspension, which may be what RFI's patent covers. (ie the patent covers both the particle and the matrix emulsion dispersed throughout the film, with a heat reflecting oxide.)
Am I wrong? Anyone else have a different opinion?
They are just kicking the can down the road before the lawsuit gets tossed.
On the non free speech thread on SI the Cult was already counting their fortunes from the suit.
REEFR CULT THREAD better than the funny papers.
Someday the CULT will sue themselves for their own stupidity
Sentiment: Strong Sell
InspecTech SPD Window Sales Projections On Track
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 21, 2001--InspecTech Aero Service, Inc. reports that, despite the terrorist attacks of September 11th, their sales goals of 5,000 SPD ``smart' aircraft windows per month in 2002 remain intact. SPD (Suspended Particle Device) aircraft window laminates utilize a fast-responding light-control technology invented by Research Frontiers Incorporated (Nasdaq:REFR - news) of Woodbury, New York.
Deliveries of SPD film from SPD Inc.'s recently completed production run as well as deliveries of components from General Electric, Goodrich Corporation and other strategic partners are taking place at this time, according to James Lang, President of InspecTech.
``Obviously, we were affected by the grounding of all U.S. flights last week like everyone else, but we are now back up to 'full speed ahead' and working to service existing customer orders as well as new orders expected from major jet manufacturers and military contracts,' comments Lang.
``The need for increased safety and security of flight crew and passengers has now moved up our scheduled testing for ballistics,' remarks Alex Martinez, InspecTech's head of engineering and new product development. ``We will be analyzing our laminates' abilities to withstand projectile and impact damage from various angles using standards developed in our industry and others.'
``We have offered our window technology to aircraft cockpit door and partition makers so that they too will have SPD laminates as an option to offer end users. This would allow pilots to safely see what is happening on the other side of the door without opening it, and a window of sufficient size would be much more difficult to block than the peephole used in current-technology doors. New Federal Aviation Regulations are being drafted in this important area as we speak,' explains Martinez.
``Other cabin environmental and noise attenuation measurements are planned
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Claim Construction Decision is available.
19 disputes on wording.
What is clear is that StockDungs wish that the case be thrown out did not occur.
Both parties won and lost on what exact wording should be used.
"According to sources who participated in a recent conference call between the [Friends of the USA Pavilion Milan 2015] group and the creditors [which includes Biber Architects and Thinc Design], there was discussion about whether federal departments other than State, such as the Department of Agriculture, could make up the shortfall. Another conference call is scheduled for March 24."
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Will get an even bigger kick if Tim Sykes and his merry men and womer hop on board for a 3rd straight year.
Let the pump and dump festivities begin..
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Oooohhhh, let's all start speculating if this will finally be the big debut of SPD in a BMW product.
Naw, let's not start that story...we all know 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
Or worse, you know who, is going to say its really going to be (gag them on SI with a spoon) Gorilla Glass.
Java, you win my award for the best line of the quarter; "It looks like there is more Veriguard SPD glass protecting stamps than there is architectural SPD glass." Wonderful line!!!
The problem with REFR is they are about sitting back and "waiting for calls to come in" (on the days they actually do come into the office) and not about really working at marketing or selling (remember it is the job of the licensees to "sell"). So the reason that REFR did not quote on the project in Philly? They don't make sales calls. They don't market to architectural. They don't have a laminator in North America and the film has to be shipped half way around the world.
Mainly, they still remain a company that is about paying huge salaries and raising money through PIPES.
A couple of years ago Joe talked to Polytronix (which does have clean room capacity to do sheet glass) but someone was underwhelmed by Joe. Yeah, I know, hard to imagine.
Joe, in the CC you said that if people dig in to the data they will find that Sage Glass of Minnesota and View Glass of California have subsidized their projects and that their projects are in their home states.
Well, a few sheep dug in to the data and found that last November, Sage Glass announced they sold a project in Philadelphia with 50,000 square feet of Sage Glass. Is Philly in Minnesota? One thing is for sure, 50,000 square feet is a lot of MSC sunroofs. How did the sales team at REFR miss that project? Why focus on small sunroofs when much bigger projects exist all across the world?
Here's a challenge to anyone: Name one SPD architectural installation in the US. It looks like there is more Varigard SPD glass protecting stamps than there is architectural SPD glass.