Moosey,I have not looked on this site for a while and have just...

Moosey,

I have not looked on this site for a while and have just found some of your latest posts, some of which were even moderated! However, you have now raised a number of points, in those posts, which require some detailed clarification by you.

We are well aware that MST held a large number of registered patents and also a number which were pending. I suspect that these that you have now found are some of those pending patents reaching registration. As I have mentioned, once or twice before in the past, there are many thousands of patents registered world-wide every year, most of which fail to achieve any commercialisation. Again I ask does the registration of these patents make them both commercial and thus automatically valuable. Based on MST’s record to date, of a lack of ability and the resources to commercialise, I would again have to argue that they currently are not. Also given that some of the earlier MST patents, which only have a life of 20 years, have either expired or are about to expire, what is their value? You are aware that Mike Dwyer in his report to the Administrator put the reason for the collapse of the Company as “The capital could not be raised to finalise development of the product to commercialise it” Given that MST product development has been undertaken since around 1994, some 20 years ago, and many millions of dollars raised and lost, we have wonder how much capital and time he thinks was needed.

Moosey, while it seems that you had a good relationship with the previous MST management, there seems to be an amount of conflicting information in your posts. Firstly, you told us that you had an email where MST had begged the ASX for a trading halt when the “Assured Fast” deal fell over. This is despite articles in the press at the same time stating categorically that the Company did not ask for a trading halt. I had expanded on the reasons that I believed this to be the case, and why they would not have. Now you suggest that “metalstorm told me some time ago that they were aware of this attempt to steal that IP, but they did nothing about it? Yet in one of his latter CEO presentations Lee advised “Over the last few months a specific project has been established in the engineering team to focus on IP protection. The key goal is to ensure that the Company maximises the IP protection on its product designs before the products are released to the market.” This sounds like they were doing something about protecting the IP. Certainly if they were not, which you claim to be the case, this was blatant case of negligence of duty by the Directors, and should have had you raise serious questions and concerns as to their ability and reason for continuance in their roles, did you? I assume not as at no time have you suggested that there may have been any fault from that quarter. While these contradictory statements may be very confusing for some, and I would have to say at this time unless there is contrary concrete evidence, I will go with the published statements.

Furthermore, you make claim that “I bet that the administrator wasn't even allowed to offer the 40mm 3GL to someone like ST Kinetics for instance, I am willing to bet that they would have jumped at the chance, the reason why it wasn't offered to them I believe is that the US would not allow any other country to possess Metalstorm technology in any shape or form”

Firstly please expand on how the US could and can stop the sale of Australian technology, to any party, that is not considered to be a security risk to Australia, and Singapore falls into that category. So on what do you base this claim? Previously, didn’t MST and ST Kinetics have a “Collaboration Agreement” to deliver final production weapons? Under the terms of that Agreement, MST and ST Kinetics had agreed to “collaborate in the design, development, testing, qualification, manufacture of prototypes and demonstration weapons and munitions as well as the commercial production and marketing of munitions and selected Metal Storm ballistic weapons that only use those munitions”. Was this not more significantly expanded in the many press releases at the time that the Collaboration was “to take its 3GL three-shot grenade launcher and 40mm ammunition to manufacture.” I also ask again did either ST Kinetics or MST manage to take this to manufacture and subsequent commercialisation. When did the Collaboration agreement terminate, or has it? Therefore I question this claim in two areas, firstly, it would appear that ST Kinetics would have had access to MST’s arsenal, including the 40mm 3GL etc, and therefore would have also been aware of any other potential commercial products. Secondly, we have been told by the Administrator that he provided details to over 85 of the Company’s customers, bid partners, prime contractors, weapon industry operators and competitors, for the sale of the Company as a going concern. This would have included all of the Company’s IP including your so called secret, or not to be discussed, IP, of which you have spoken so passionately about previously. Are you suggesting that they would have neglected to include ST Kinetics, who are a collaborative partner? Again interested to hear on what evidence you base this on. Could it be that possibly due to the fact that none of the MST products worked on by ST Kinetics during the collaboration had been or could be commercialised? Or could it be, strange as it seems, that perhaps ST Kinetics did not, or does not, see any value in MST’s IP? Could it be that the Singaporeans, a stand-alone sovereign state, are also acting in concert with the US? Is this now a world-wide conspiracy? This could also put pay to your argument that it is solely the US who was “by simply starving Metalstorm of any funds whatsoever, by simply not letting them get one sale on anything even that even slightly resembled any Metalstorm IP”.

You also go on to say “even fireworks or handguns it would seem, too bad that the Chinese have been working on the tech, for wellover five years or more now, I will bet they already have working models, if someone was going to steal the tech? well at least I could understand if it were the Chinese? But the US? KD? that would not sit well with me”

Given that I did not follow MST’s product development as closely as some however, I was not aware that MST was undertaking any development work in fireworks? Please expand on this and also show why this not become a commercial reality? As regards the handgun situation, we know that MST and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) signed a formal partnership commercialise biometric technology patented by NJIT and applied to an electronic handgun developed by Metal Storm. Subsequent to this it has been widely reported that the NJIT had spent millions of dollars in federal and state grants however, despite this there has been no interest, for more than a decade, from gun manufacturers in commercialising it. So it seems from your perspective that perhaps the US were even stifling development by American institutions. It now seems that there is a new technology, for hand guns, highlighted elsewhere by Shiggy, which has been favoured by Joe Biden in his report to Obama and then to the US Government as part of their gun control legislation. This is the technology belonging to Triggersmart which uses RIFD as opposed to biometric technology used by MST and NJIY. This shows that despite spending millions of dollars, if you fail to commercialise, or fail to be first to the market, the value of your technology quickly fades. Further evidence of this is that a German company beat MST and NJIY to the market, by introducing a smart gun using biometric technology. However, I understand that it failed to get any commercial sales and the product has since been withdrawn. Triggersmart is an Irish company, so it will be interesting to see if it successful or fails due to (your theory) interference by the US or that product is just not commercial due to lack of market interest. If it fails perhaps the Irish may also claim interference. Given the commercial failure of the German product and the promotion of the Irish patents, what do you consider is the value of the MST patent?

I also find it a little strange that you also seem blasé and almost resigned to the fact of the Chinese obtaining MST technology legally or not. Given that the Chinese may in fact use this technology against Australia’s army! Yet you have a problem with an ally, the US, obtaining access to the technology