This has been a dead horse that is going nowhere, with all the debate that there has been. There will little or no more than you have seen, UNLESS SOMEONE GOES OVER THERE AND KNOCKS ON THEIR DOOR.
As a summary, WTS was GIVEN this as a gift and didn't initiate it. They dont have a say in the design, usage or offerings of this confused product.
Frankly, these types of product have been useless "white elephants" that are beginning to show some promise.
(As an Industrial Engineer, I evaluated the suitability of a similar product over 25 years ago: I found that it was NOT VIABLE.) For decades this engine and its sister designs have been "vapor-ware": you couldnt get reassuring numbers on an "installed base", go visit a third-party site to observe the application or even place an order!!! Even the prototypes were frequently failures or "unavailable".
For a modest amount of labor and a few hundred dollars in filing fees and printing costs, anyone can make a "drawing board only" design look attractive and get some attention. A cheap Internet offering would really allow some hype, as the Internet is so full of "confidence games".
Now somewhere along the line, SOMEBODY threw some money at a software outfit that had a function that others needed. The government bought some of this action. Did the government buy the software product directly or through a third-party? Is the control of the software house still under the original gift situation? Im not sure this has been clarified.
What nobody has considered here is what used to called interlocking directorates. At one time, this was considered an antitrust violation and was frowned upon in the US. It is returning, slowly but surely. Under those conditions, you are not sure who is doing what in any business arrangement. I "smell" that in this case.
(Scenario: I make stainless steel screws. I decide NOT to submit a government RFQ [Request For Quote]. I politely decline. Meanwhile, Hewlett Packard orders my stainless steel screws to put into an instrument. The USAF orders 3,000 of these instruments. Am I a government supplier? I certainly didn't intend to be one!!!)
My feeling is that the donor decided to "cut his losses" and get rid of this worthless company as a legitimate tax dodge, but hedge his bets by retaining control.
Giving WTS control wouldn't make any sense; this is not their core expertise. Now if the WTS had gotten control, and pursued some of this "outside activity", you would have something that is really damning, not merely questionable and confusing.
Also, the Donor prevents the WTS from selling their interest, either. The WTS can only hang on for the ride and hope it does something that will justify a dividend being declared. BTW, selling a "dead" "penny-stock" is frequently hopeless.
There is some reason to believe that this stock has been sold MORE THAN ONCE. What happens when 200 or 300 percent of a stock is issued? There was some court activity over this (what a surprise!!!). I don't believe that there has been any follow-up activity on that detail.
The Internet is a wonderful research tool, AS FAR AS IT GOES. In this instance, that is limited to armchair oversight and speculation. The level of "hot-air" involved here is not yet apparent. Is this real? What of the improprieties that have been glimpsed?
The Internet will do nothing to dispel the decades that some of these situations languish. The Internet will do nothing for information that is NOT FORTHCOMING. It doesn't replace good old-fashioned, get-off-your-ass legwork and follow-up.
Bottom-line:
This mess remains questionable and confusing. The product, activity and ownership are all doubtful.
This thing is STALLED, with no fresh input from the Internet or real research(ers). You could easily wait 10 years for the next chapter. (My personal favorite design is now getting serious attention after 70 years; the original designer is long dead.)
If anyone is serious about this mess, someone would get attention focused on it and present it at Brooklyns door, like the UN situation was. Likely, with some "light of day" exposure, the WTS would rapidly divest this albatross. Otherwise, it is worthless speculation and remains a "dead horse" or "white elephant".
Edited by - mustang on 27 October 2002 12:48:30
