Is it something about the water in Texas that brings us these character plays reminding me of old Greek tragedies? Between the debacle of redistricting the state and the every unpopular GWB, there is little to be said, other than a shake of the head.

The news about SED is bad enough. Is it really necessary to always link something bad to GWB, though? What if the court had been in Mass? Would we be blaming the Kennedys? Please leave the political whining and finger pointing out.

I'm an equal-opportunity jester. If the court had been in Massachussetts, I'd have said leave it to a Boston drunk to drive SED off a bridge.

Dear Mr. Reed, I have sadly mourn the loss of civility and the sense of humor America used to show; not just to others but about ourselves as well. There is a strong case for levity, it often takes us out of the shadows and morass of everyday life to look anew at our problems and their solutions. Frankly, with all the debacles occurring in Washington, I would have hoped you could see the humorous intent as there are so many other current and delightful items that could have been referenced. As for the Honorable Justice in this case, and the great State of Texas; if it had occurred in Mass. I would indeed have linked it to the Kennedy clan. They too have created many moments best handled with the same levity.

I wouldn't blame the lawyers, I'd blame the people that hired them. If you wanted a title suggesting one side was the bad guys, I'd suggest: "Nano-Proprietary strangles its own SED technology." More importantly, I'd say that, for this story, more facts would be helpful. Is it simply that Nano-Proprietary got greedy and wanted more out of the deal than they originally negotiated, and the only way they could do that was by playing legal games? Or is it that Nano-Proprietary had been misled by Canon about what they were planning to do with the technology (and the attendant market size), and thus agreed to a degree of compensation that really was much less that what they would have agreed to had they known the truth? That's the kind of detail I'd like to see this magazine offer in its coverage of this story.

Good point about the lawyers. As for your two scenarios, I think they're both valid. Nano's financial statements refer to, among other things, "fraudulent inducement and fraudulent non-disclosure related to events and representations made during our negotiations on the license." In other words, Nano says Canon didn't play fair. But I don't think we can dismiss the possibility that Nano just wanted more money, since the company lost $3.2 million in 2006. There are no hard facts available on Nano's true intent aside from what's on the public record. Finally, here's something I haven't yet reported: Nano is also in litigation with a German national named Till Keesmann who licensed patents relating to carbon nanotube technology (perhaps a distant cousin of SED?) to Nano in 2000. Nano has won the latest round. For more details see Nano's SEC filing at http://sec.edgar-online.com/2006/08/01/0001188112-06-002287/Section3.asp. That's the closest we'll get to hard

Oops, last sentence of previous post cut off.... I was about to say: That's the closest we'll get to hard facts in on any of this stuff.

more info. on this story: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8806.cfm

And another perspective, from an Australian website, suggesting this mess was Canon's fault (for sharing Nano-Proprietary's patents with other firms without Nano's permission): http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/SED/X2X4P5T7

My sympathy goes entirely to the people who set up an assembly line to produce this product and weren't allowed to use it. Theirs was the greatest investment and it was in vain.

asgw3.txt;4;15

asgw3.txt;4;15

asgw3.txt;4;15

Hi People How are you doing?