Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Tiny Litigation Update

Seal Defendant's Brief

SkunK

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled by the 100 block paint job. Buyers have outnumbered sellers 7 days in a row.

elahans said...

Shrimp anyone?
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/8511/researcher-sees-ddgs-as-potential-savior-of-u-s-shrimp-industry

Anonymous said...

There is a reason for trying to delay the final outcome. First, the letter for sale pror to the end date. Second, to intimidate corn ethanol producers on a shoe-strinng about punitive damages to sign contracts.

Buy if you will in an unsteady situation. I think I will sell, cut losses and put my money into prtroleum and natural gas. If you bought BP at $14.00 after the oil spill, you would have already tripled your money. Dump and find new territory like SPLM.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone find anything on Marquis suing greenShift?

Anonymous said...

"First, the letter for sale pror to the end date."

As, I am sure YOU are aware every inventor has the right to build his invention to scale and to experiment with it, and work out the bugs prior to filing an application. The only place one can do that in this case is an actual Ethanol Plant. That is a specific exemption in the law that allows for experimentation. That requires paperwork. GreenShift's inventors used "experiment" like 45 times in the paperwork the DEFENDANTS submitted to the court.

"Second, to intimidate corn ethanol producers on a shoe-strinng about punitive damages to sign contracts."

Over half of the licenses signed by GreenShift are forward looking business that far outweight GreenShift in Assets. GPRE, Sunoco and the like are hardly sho string. Defendants, on the other hand are largely small producers that are beholding to ICM. They were built by ICM, they owe money to ICM, have a credit line with ICM and ICM either promised or implied that that they would NOT be sued because the patents were invalid. ICM has huge sway in the boards rooms of small ethanol plants and they used their bully status to sign defendants. They also used it to take the technology from GreenShift when they were partners and continued to sell the technology after they split.

ICM does not deny they never sold any COES. Then they bought two units from GreenShift after signing "non disclosure" forms. They reverse engineered and then began to sell them on their own. They used Prevost "the red herring" to claim no one would get sued.

They were wrong on Prevost and like a school yead bully they just got hit in the face by the skinny-est little kid on the playground.

ICM has to win this case or all they other kids might decide they do not have to cough up all their lunch money to the bully.

Anonymous said...

"Did anyone find anything on Marquis suing greenShift?"

No, but if we don't have a link or a quote or something to go on soon I would advise Skunk to take down your post so his blog is not used by others to start false rumors to manipulate the stock price. That is what the Yahoo board is for. I think it is even in their TOS lol.

Anonymous said...

GreenShift would be irresponsible NOT to tell the industry they own 5 COES patents and they will protect their intellectual property if required.

ICM and other who profit from infringing and end up herding their customers like sheep to the slaughter are the irresponsible ones. JMHO

 
Free Blog CounterTamron