Silicon DaleA broken chainSo much for Catena Systems. So much for a binding agreement ! From the Comlabs web site, 9 May 2003:-
(http://www.comlabs.com.au/merger.asp)
Following the failure to complete an IPO, Comlabs has been working with MICL/Datamine on various structures to achieve a merger as an unlisted company - Catena Systems Pty. Ltd. Unfortunately the parties have not been able to obtain a suitable agreement and as a result it has been decided to abandon any further discussions.
As a result, there has been no change to the Comlabs ownership or management structure and will continue to operate as it has in the past. Comlabs will continue to work closely with it's clients and strategic alliances to ensure a high standard of service delivery.
If you look at any of the Datamine web sites today, you will find no mention anywhere of Catena Systems. It is as if the episode never happened ! "Catena what ?" However, there is still evidence scattered around the web if you search for it, as can be seen from these examples:- From a news item in the Mining Journal, 26 March, 2003 (http://www.mining-journal.com/artman/publish/article_593.asp)
From a Datamine web page cached by Google - the original has already been replaced (and so has the Google cache, now) (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:FAavyKKUDOMJ:www.datamine.co.uk/MICL/+catena+systems+datamine&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
From http://www.catenasys.com cached by Google - the original has already been removed (and the Google cache is now also removed) (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:9UUiUt_ol2gJ:www.catenasys.com/+catena+systems+datamine+binding&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
From http://www.micl.org you could still (until mid-June) get the full story, from a page that Datamine had forgotten to remove for several weeks ! They even had a large 'Catena' logo for you to admire.
What I find interesting about the 9 May announcement by Comlabs is that it implies that the success of the merger was entirely dependent on an IPO - and that without a successful IPO the principals of the two companies were unable to find a way to work together. If you look at the 'partners' pages of the two web sites you'll find that neither company even lists the other as a partner now. As I commented in my article 'Mumbo Jumbo' in ESCA just 3 months ago, there seemed to be something strange about the Comlabs/Datamine merger. What is going on ? I don't know, and I'm sure many Datamine users don't know either. If you are a Datamine user, and concerned about the future of the mining software that you rely on, then maybe I can help you. If you've had the software for some time, you may have heard of me - I'm Steve Henley, co-founder (and originally 50% owner) of MICL in 1981, and the designer and developer of much of the Datamine system. I left the company in 1993. It was not my choice to leave the company - I was chairman and technical director, and totally committed to the company and its products - but (even though the truth is supposed to be a sure defence) I am not going to risk the costs of defending a defamation action by publishing any details of how I came to leave the company - and how Peter Stokes came to become the majority shareholder. However, I do intend to use this column to make legitimate comments on what has happened. Both companies included in their announcements that the merger was a binding agreement. To my mind, an agreement that can be terminated so readily and so soon after it was concluded does not seem to be so binding. I think it raises a real question mark over the bona fides of Datamine's commercial dealings more generally. If I were a paying customer of the company, or considering a purchase of their products, I am sure that I would seriously be questioning not only their range of technology (clearly they are no longer offering the 'mining value chain' solutions which were the justification for the merger) but also the company's veracity. For the 12 years while I was with Datamine, we operated according to a set of ethical principles - one of the most important of which was that a binding agreement was just that - binding. It was not something that would conveniently be consigned to the trash-can of history after just a few weeks simply because an IPO was unlikely to happen. The world has been told that this agreement was binding - not that it might be abandoned if there was no cash forthcoming from external investors. It seems to me that Catena was not about any high-minded technological partnership, but more about greed on the part of the principals of one or both companies. Looked at in this light, the merger does make a sort of sense. I am not in a position to comment on the principals of Comlabs, but Peter Stokes, majority owner of Datamine, is probably looking for an exit route now, as he approaches retirement age. While I was with the company, he never made any secret of his main objective to use the company to "become sincerely rich". Yet, since 1993 Datamine has not made the great advances that we had planned and worked for. The two directors with vision for the future of the business both left the company in that year, and Datamine's product development since then has followed what seems to be a pedestrian path. To the best of my knowledge little or nothing has been done to upgrade the core of the system (I am not even sure if there is anyone left in the company who understands it) and as a result there are now, in my opinion, some very serious deficiencies in their flagship product. In the absence of major market success, the obvious other way to bring in a lot of money is through an IPO. However, Datamine on its own would not have been an attractive IPO prospect (especially in view of the Gemcom experience). Hence the merger idea. Maybe my interpretation of the situation is way off beam. However, one thing is clear from the Comlabs announcement. Without the money that would come from an IPO, the principals of the two companies were unable to find any way to work together. This suggests to me that their merger idea in itself had very little to do with the technology, or the marketplace, or serving the companies' customers better. I should like to finish this piece with a little bit of advertising. If you are a Datamine user, then you might well be looking for some assurance that your Datamine software has a future - and maybe you're still reading this because the company hasn't actually told you anything that reassures you. Possibly I can offer some help. I know the core Datamine system, and many of the applications, intimately (since I actually wrote much of it), and I may be able to help you bridge the gap if you decide to migrate to an alternative mining software supplier because you are losing your trust in the suppliers of Datamine. Clearly this is something that MICL/Datamine might not be especially interested in helping you to do, even if they were in a position to do so - and of course you will not find anybody within the other mining software companies with the same intimate knowledge of the central workings of Datamine. Alternatively, of course, you may wish to continue using your Datamine system but
would be interested in customised development of new applications compatible with your
Datamine database - and upgrading the database and other 'core' areas to remedy some of
their problems. If so, please let me know - by email on dm.assistance@SiliconDale.co.uk,
with some details of your concerns and what you would like to do - and we can then
discuss your needs and how I may be able to assist you.
|