Thanks for your reasonable response. I found the info and didn't even realize it was on the net. You did raise some interesting questions that I will pursue further.
I can answer, or address, some of your comments now:
makes no sense about law suit, fuji stopping their own imports? why, would they?
IMHO I don't believe they are not trying to stop imports, just ones without patents. The "legal action with the International Trade Commission" leaves Safari out of the mix. From what we understand all the work on the recycled cameras is done in the US. One of the films they use to reload IS Fuji. With Safari they make money either way!
Anyway could you imagine this company going against a US company that recycles plastic and saves it from our dumps?! They wouldn't even need lawyers, Bring in one or two of the major ecology groups and they would do the work for them! I don't feel they would even want to go there.
In my area law REQUIRES us, to recycle at our place of business. Isn't that what they are doing?<g> Of course this is JMHO and food for thought.
make sure you don't have an offshore transfer agent and see what union trading has to do with safr, make sure they aren't doing a big secondary offering in europe which will dilute your shareholder value
This I can't answer but will research.
do they have a proprietary technology
Yes. This is on the recoil pads and the targets. From what I understand they do not want to patent the products. A patent will protect then in the US, and numerous countries that respect / reciprocate our laws, but this makes the process public. I understand Mort's logic and feel he is more knowledgeable than I on the subject than I am.
The only example I could cite goes back many years. I grew up around the film / developing industries as I had family in the business. Avoiding names just to keep us clean, this is all JMHO.
The P Company had the patent for instant pictures, actually they had two. The one they used and the one where they held as a hedge on competition. At this time the K Company made their film (bet you didn't know that!). The K Company didn't have any instant cameras. When the P Company positioned themselves to make their own film the K Company determined they were going to suffer a substantial loss in manufacturing. As they were already in this business they began to manufacture a product, at least similar, to the second patent. I never found out who won. My money is on the lawyers!
leasing from smith & wesson is nothing, what makes them different or special
With this I STRONGLY disagree. Licensing with S&W adds a MAJOR credibility factor to an otherwise unknown company. I don't believe S&W would sanction this if they didn't believe in the products. They have to be concerned about liability. It increases sales for SAFR and increases the bottom line for S&W. I have always loved a win-win deal! From what I understand they are looking at expanding the relationship.
surf international patent type web sites
We haven't figured out the OTC yet! For people who only seem to learn the hard way, additional pain and suffering isn't in the foreseeable future! <VBG>
Any information you find would be appreciated.
Jeff(&Debra)
|
