interesting ?

Most would be aware of the risk factors regarding US and Oz govt ability to take over any
IP or tech if it believes it is the countrys interests.
I take it from spodwyers post on SS 22-7-10 that, that side of the family believe MST hasnt been compensated fairly, that had it done so then the raisings of capital since 2003 or there abouts (involvement with classified stuff) would not have been necessary making me think not only dilution being held at bay but that we would have been for some time receiving dividends perhaps of some magnitude.
I havent noticed this opening sentence in previous capital raisings risk factors (correct me if Im wrong) regarding possible govt involvement The Company relies on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and proprietary technological
innovation and expertise, which are protected, in part, by confidentiality agreements with
employees, advisers, consultants and others. However, these agreements may not provide
adequate protection against improper use or disclosure of confidential information and there
may not be adequate remedies in the event of unauthorised use or disclosure.

Does this make spodwyer an ex disgruntled employee? and perhaps rightly so! or..........
Have the board members been very aware of this part Any such actions in relation to the Companys patents by the governments of
Australia, the United States or other countries could affect its ability to protect and
effectively commercialise its technology.
Apart from the Co not been in a position financially to launch such a legal action, is there to much down side by particularly the US in not allowing MST to enter their defence supply chain should such a legal challenge happen...........I would think so, particularly now being close to commercialization
Has spodwyer made his intentions to MST prior to his post dated 22-7-10 as he suggested
would be his way, if so then the opening sentence (latest capital raising) with the risk factor makes some sense for the Co to include this wording.
Ive shown the PROSPECT renounceable Rights Issue 28-7-06 P41 for comparison as I dont see any opening sentence like in the latest capital raising or anything prior to latest?

This from ann 16-7-10 P32 & 33
:- Metal Storm announces non-renounceable
pro rata rights issue to raise up to
A$3.0 million

The Company relies on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and proprietary technological
innovation and expertise, which are protected, in part, by confidentiality agreements with
employees, advisers, consultants and others. However, these agreements may not provide
adequate protection against improper use or disclosure of confidential information and there
may not be adequate remedies in the event of unauthorised use or disclosure.
(i) Risk of government action on patent applications and patents
The Australian and US governments have powers that could interfere with the Companys
ability to obtain patents or commercialise its technology.
For example, under the provisions of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), the Commonwealth of
Australia has the right to exploit an invention for the services of the Commonwealth of
Australia at any time after a patent application has been made. The remuneration and terms
for exploitation are determined by agreement or by a court.
A patent or a patent application may also be acquired by the Commonwealth of Australia.
Compensation is determined by agreement or by a court.
Under the US Patent Act, the US government may use an invention described in and covered
by a US patent without license of the owner. The remuneration and terms for compensation
are determined by agreement or by a court.
Any such actions in relation to the Companys patents by the governments of Australia, the
United States or other countries could affect its ability to protect and effectively commercialise
its technology.

This from:- PROSPECTUS Renounceable Rights Issue 28-7-06 P41
Governments action on patent applications and patents
The Australian and US governments have powers that could interfere with the
Companys ability to obtain patents or commercialise its technology.

For example, under the provisions of the Australian Patents Act, the Commonwealth
of Australia has the right to exploit an invention for the services of the
Commonwealth of Australia at any time after a patent application has been made.
The remuneration and terms for exploitation are determined by agreement or by a
court.
A patent or a patent application may also be acquired by the Commonwealth of
Australia. Compensation is determined by agreement or by a court.
Under the US Patent Act, the US government may use an invention described in and
covered by a US patent without license of the owner. Where this occurs, the owners
only remedy is an action against the US government for compensation for the use
and manufacture of the invention.
Any such actions in relation to the Companys patents by the governments of
Australia, the United States or other countries could affect its ability to protect and
effectively commercialise its technology.

Interesting!
Cheers,
mrdog.