ICM joins request to add '517 HERE
SkunK
When this started in Oct 2009 ICM seemed to lead the defense . . .
"Defendants asserted additional factual bases for adding the ‘517 patent which were not available to ICM at the time of its earlier motion."
I am sure they are all on the same team, but the ICM quote above hardly projects its leadership and hints at lack of sharing information among defendant law firms.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
it is over in ways too huge to describe!!!...the play was short obviously
I look forward to the results of the legal conference on August 1st. GERS will prevail.
great fundemental story...except technicals are broken like i never saw before
Anony 1:34, can you please elaborate what you mean?
price trumps intelligencia
either over , over there or the dakest before the storm....technicals say strong sell...RSI and stoch and MACD in uncharted territory
Icm is dead the 37 is a nail through their heart.
Is this stock ever going to take off?
Yes, yes it will.
Yeah, it will probably soar to 0,06 $, so I'm back on track with no gain or loss.
hope so...
m2a
What a freaking mess this has turned into. Lot's of company's file patents and never go through this crap. Makes you wonder if GS really did screw this up in the beginning and just could stop it once the cash was in thier pockets. It sounds like this is going to go on for years...the best I can hope for is for somebody step up and buy these guys!
When you really look at all the legal advancements and with GreenShift being granted a status conference for August 1st, I see this coming to a conclusion in the near future. The defense is pretty much on their last straw.
Considering how far this has gone and what we know lies ahead, I don't see this going on for years, as many speculate.
GreenShift will prevail, and so will GERS.
not to many speculate years just jimmbody
Total Jim
rip icm 37
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2011-patent-litigation-study.pdf
I thought this report was interesting. I'd love to hear peoples' thoughts. You have to wade through a lot of NPE statistics that don't really apply to us, but take from it what you will.
I read that, thank you for the link.
This quote from that study (in reference to the new America Invents Act), I think should gain confidence in GERS:
"Specifically, it awards
a patent to the first person to file a
patent application on an invention
with the US Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”), even if the filer
was not the first to invent."
Only seems fair that once infringement becomes obvious, there should be a cut-off point, regardless of indemnification, when ... treble damages can apply to all. If not, call your representative and raise hell.
IMOFO
Post a Comment