Toss, your thoughts here are I think at the essence of our current dilemma.
I have been quiet since the suspension was lifted. While I still see substantial commercial value in the company's IP, I have been deeply troubled by the value-destroying style of the last ann.
This week's interview has helped, but the essence remains that communications have been sadly lacking. Which leads me to ask just one (albeit multiple part) question of the Board:
After years of continually promoting SCM close to DRAM as the company's primary target, what motivated the company to state, (without any helpful clarification) "...there is no established market for Storage Class Memory”? And given the statement this week that the company's primary goal now is to effectively replace DRAM, why was that message not communicated previously? How does the company reconcile and justify the value-destroying impact of those two messages being issued in the order presented, especially noting the company's responsibility for continuous disclosure?
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
