The SkunK receives numerous E-Mails from readers giving him leads on stories and opinion. I received this email today and I find its arguments supported and self evident. The author must vacation in SkunK's head.
**************
GreenShift does not have an apparatus patent covering a centrifuge (disc-stack or horizontal) or any of the 100 other widgets used as part of a corn oil extraction system. GreenShift has METHOD patents which cover the process of extracting corn oil from the backend of ethanol plants. The novel METHODS described in GreenShift's patents were new to the ethanol industry in 2004 when GreenShift introduced them, and nobody, not Westfalia, nor ICM, nor any other widget supplier, nor any other widget assembler, extracted any corn oil before GreenShift using those methods. Any references to ICM "technology" here are false. ICM is a general contractor. Much like a contractor builds your house with 2 x 4s and pipe and wire and widgets, ICM builds process facilities using concrete, steel, pipe, wire and widgets. Other people's widgets. Sometimes, presumably to keep more margin for themselves, they copy widgets (hence, the well-known joke: "I Copy Machinery"). Stealing shamelessly from GreenShift's shareholders is just one example.
ICM's supporters argue that their Tricanter technology/widget allows them to circumvent GreenShift's novel method patents because a Tricanter is not a "disc stack" centrifuge/widget. ICM doesn't even own Tricanter "technology" - the mark "Tricanter" is the registered trademark of Flottweg
See their brochure: Http://www.flottweg.de/cms/upload/downloads/old/Solvent_Extraction_Crud_en.pdf
ICM buys Tricanter widgets from Flottweg and assembles them, with nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps and other widgets, into corn oil extraction systems based on the novel methods described in GreenShift's patents - methods, that ICM dissected in 2004/05 after purchasing two corn oil extraction systems (with 100s of individual widgets) from GreenShift under a non-disclosure agreement.
Not a lick of what ICM does with Flottweg's Tricanter improves upon what GreenShift disclosed in its patents in 2004. Those that comment that ICM has its own technology are unable to provide any foundation for their comments. If I am wrong then speak up. Their only defense is to call Flottweg's Tricanter widget an ICM "technology" and to play word games (such as, "buy my stuff and don't worry about GreenShift because they use a disc stack widget and ICM sells a shiny Tricanter widget"). ICM's own legal filings don't deny infringement but instead make the ridiculous argument that the U.S. Patent Office was somehow wrong. Right. They'll keep singing that song until the courts tell ICM to shut down and to cut GreenShift a 9 figure check.
Unfortunately, the stakes keep increasing and ICM is doing the ethanol industry and each of ICM's clients a huge injustice by inducing what very much looks like intentional infringement. ICM is walking ethanol producers straight into incredible liabilities which include treble damages and PERSONAL LIABILITY. The recent SIRE announcement is just the latest example. SIRE basically just broadcast what appears to be its intent to knowingly infringe despite having obviously received notice of GreenShift's patent rights. The law provides that "objectively reckless" and willful behavior subjects the infringer to liability for treble damages and attorneys fees. If that weren't enough: CORPORATE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS CAN BE HELD TO BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES DUE TO THEIR ROLE IN APPROVING THE INFRINGEMENT. Look it up. I shit you not. What in the holy heck is SIRE's managers and board thinking? Might as well just give GreenShift the keys to their plant today and save a bunch of legal fees. Any plant that enters into an "indemnity" or "joint defense" agreement with ICM is basically just executing an affidavit admitting intentional infringement.
Some producers I know hate the fact that GreenShift delivered what is by far the single greatest innovation the ethanol industry has ever seen. They hate the fact that it is "simple" in hindsight and talk of ways to get around GreenShift's patents. They think they should have the right to take what they all know GreenShift invented. Some really smart people looked at GreenShift and its technologies and its patents. GreenShift raised $50 million to develop its technologies, plus another $38 million from General Electric to build extraction systems before GE ran out of money. Green Plains, Marquis, United, Global and Central and others all signed deals with GreenShift. You don't raise that kind of money or cut deals with those companies unless you are the real deal, and unless you add value.
Marquis was smart enough to ask the actual inventor of the patented METHODS how to improve yield with their off-the-shelf Tricanter widgets. GreenShift doubled their yield. Green Plains was smart enough to buy widgets and construction services from a general contractor and a technology license from the technology inventor, and they cut a deal that DOUBLES their entire 2009 net income. The writing is on the wall. GreenShift's patents are valid and strong. This deal is a glimpse of things to come.
*************
SkunK
Friday, July 23, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
"The novel METHODS described in GreenShift's patents were new to the ethanol industry in 2004 when GreenShift introduced them"
Almost everyone from within the industry knows this statement to be false. The only reason that anyone pays Greenshift any attention at all is because Greenshift is suing everyone they think they can. It is the only way Greenshift has been able to get any customers.
"ICM is a general contractor."
This statement alone shows how little industry knowledge the author has.
Concerning ICM "technology": Here's the big difference between the two. ICM isn't trying to claim that they invented this technology, process, whatever you want to call it. They know that there is nothing novel about this process to begin with. If you have a big vat of sludge and you want to separate part of it off, you use a centrifuge. ICM, as well as a number of other companies (some of which were trying this long before Greenshift existed), are simply finding the best parts to piece together to help plants extract oil.
"What in the holy heck is SIRE's managers and board thinking?"
Every time a plant buys ICM's technology package, or anyone else's for that matter, it speaks volumes against the package GS has put together. Plants are saying that they would rather use good technology and risk being sued than use GS technology. GS only gets customers when they sue them--what does that tell you about their product!
The industry knows the real story--not just what can be twisted and manipulated by stringing together snippets from Google.
The rampant speculation on this blog does provide a lot of entertainment though, and since it's a free country, by all means, keep it up.
If GS technology is bad technology, then why is it constantly being infringed upon?
This is what you can't seem to understand--it is not novel. No one is infringing because it should never have been patented.
The US Patent and Trademark Office do not typically give patents for non patenable creations or techniques. You cannot just patent anything. Just because you say it is not novel means nothing. It was obviously novel enough for several companies to sign license agreements, for the judical courts to allow it to come fourth to be heard, and for the US Patent and Trademark office to patent it in the first place.
Mistakes happen. It seems pretty obvious that the only reason any company signed licensing agreements is because they got sued or are trying to avoid being sued.
Nice, the smell off desperation is oozing trough these "obvious real" statements.
Everyone whos job it is to judge such things says that GreenShift's novel process is patentable.
Experienced Patent office experts. Who happen to be experts in this particular field. Years and years of patent experience. They gave it a patent. Then a second. Then a third. WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE!
ICM figures they can make more money if they ignore the patents. So they ignore the patents.
Well you can also make more money if you steal other people's money out of the bank. Its called being a bank robber. Seems like you could make a lot of money doing it. Not a good long range decision.
We a a nation of laws. Not a nation of thiefs. The law will win here.
They will deservidly end up losing their own business because of their stupid judgement. Nine figures. But what is really bad is they are leading a few gullible victims along with them.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."
— Winston S. Churchill
The End is Near.
Their house of cards is collasping in on itself.
The smell of their desperation is in the air.
You can read it in their posts.
You can feel it in their shaken confidence.
The grasping of straws in the face of GreenShift win after win.
Why doesn't the Patent office listen to us?
Why doesn't the Ethanol Industry listen to us?
Why doesn't anyone listen to us?
Beacause you are wrong. You were not "wronged" You are wrong.
The Coes are real, The COES are effective. The COES are patented. The COES patents are enforceable. The patent law will be enforced.
GreenShift was right all along.
"Every time a plant buys ICM's technology package, or anyone else's for that matter, it speaks volumes against the package GS has put together."
I have sit in on sales calls from ICM, GS and others. GS has no equipment package. GS's pitch is directed to the process, not the "widgets" - in fact, they told me that they didn't care which equipment package I used as long as they received a license for our use of GS's patented process and had an ongoing opportunity to help us increase yield and minimize costs. They recommended certain components because of their experience, but they even told me I could use ICM's equipment if I wanted.
Also - none of the facilities GS built are complete. I think their financing was lost in the middle of construction. I have personally toured three of them. They are all prototypes, two of them at the most challenged Delta T plants I am aware of.
The novel METHODS described in GreenShift's patents were new to the ethanol industry in 2004 when GreenShift introduced them"
(someone said) Almost everyone from within the industry knows this statement to be false.
Oh Really??? YOU can go to the 2005 article where the ICM SPOKESMAN said they were buying the COES TECH from Dave Winsness. THESE ARE ICM'S WORDS IN AN ARTICLE IN 2005. ICM started selling COES AFTER they reverse engineered the GERS COES.
The notion that ICM or anyone else already had the technolgy is laughable. They would have been advertizing the systen all over the industry.
SHOW ME THE AD!
SHOW ME THE AD!
SHOW ME THE AD!
There are none. Can you read non-patented COS Ethanol industry? Ask ICM what plants they outfited for COES before the purchase from GERS. Hint - there are none!
The patent office already looked at the ICM case for prior knowlege or use of the technology and REJECTED IT.
Don't you realize that this will all come out in court and the ICM victims will not be happy? Greenshift better be first in line, cause if their is anything left of ICM it will be going to the Ethanol Industry ICM victims.
I have sit in on sales calls from ICM, GS and others. GS has no equipment package. GS's pitch is directed to the process, not the "widgets" - in fact, they told me that they didn't care which equipment package I used as long as they received a license for our use of GS's patented process and had an ongoing opportunity to help us increase yield and minimize costs.
Curious: What was the thoughts in the board room about the strenght of the GERS patents? Has your plant decided what to do yet?
I know everyone wants stuff to be free. I wish I could get free steak and free beer, but I relise I have to pay the OWNER of a property when I want something. It cost them money to get the propery whether it is real property or intellectual property.
Oh can I get some free ethanol? lol
"What was the thoughts in the board room about the strenght of the GERS patents? Has your plant decided what to do yet?"
We haven't done anything yet. My board is slow to move. Tell you what though, I learned today that I would be personally liable for up to tripple damages if we put a system in today without license from GS. My facility doesn't have that kind of cash.
"Oh can I get some free ethanol?"
No, we need to be paid.
GreenShift has been saying that the industry will have 70% backend COES in like 2022. Is this realistic in your opinion?
Is this something everyone is at least looking at now?
"Oh can I get some free ethanol?"
No, we need to be paid.
Oh.. You too huh? :~)
"GreenShift has been saying that the industry will have 70% backend COES in like 2022. Is this realistic in your opinion?
Is this something everyone is at least looking at now?"
GS didn't generate that statistic, the EPA did. Everyone is looking at this tech, many in secret. GS's 40 plant estimate is low in my opinion. Probably more like 60 plants.
Post a Comment