Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Meeting

Defendants talk about what is going to be talked about at the big meeting today:
HERE

Read the first 4 ICM major filings?  Here is the 5th

SkunK

34 comments:

nobody12378 said...

I have been laughed at, scoffed and ridiculed in the past when I have brought forwarded what I have learned from professionals in this field about the extended period of time that is going to be required to bring this litigation to closure. The Skunk provides documents that give evidence to the lengthy and arduous road ahead. And this extended time-table is only for the lower court proceedings; nothing at all has been entered relative to post trial maneuvering/reconsiderations and appeals. Now, the attorneys from both sides are attesting to the the length of this slog ahead of us. Are they also bashers? Does any one really think that DVG is going to settle? Now let some reality sink in here -- finally.

nobody12378 said...

More reality questions: Does any one really think that new financing can be found before the litigation is completed? Does any one really think that GERS can last out these years without massively diluting the stock?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think nobody can take a break from his circle jerk to write such blasphemy

nobody12378 said...

That is a very intelligent and thoughtful response. Your use of the term "blasphemy" is telling. You and so many others are dealing in beliefs with regard to GERS and not reality. Sounds like a wise investment approach to me.

Anonymous said...

Listening to you is like listening to rap music over and over again. Just sell if it's such a bad investment for you.

nobody12378 said...

Where is the fun in that, where is the zing of the adventure, where is the stimulation of the gambit; where is the matrix for sustenance?

Anonymous said...

can you stop posting please

Anonymous said...

gers down 4% on 1,000 share volume...no buyers...

nobody12378 said...

That's my fault. I shouldn't have pointed out what was in the legal filing.

Anonymous said...

no buyers at any price defines down gap price action...no rush on this issue..yet/if ever

Anonymous said...

everyone has lost a fortune here...now the time line of the litigation skedual cannot be met by new investors in the common market....a big clue...gers has had years to line up legitamate financing..no takers! ...none...save your money and earn no interest..that is a better choice....i am not a basher//...i am a technician

Anonymous said...

...i am a technician
who works for the defendants.
I don't want to lose my job.
they said thats what would happen if we lost this case and had to pay back all the money we stole from GreenShift shareholders by not paying royalties to a multi-patent holder.

Bank robbng is too dangerous cause they shoot back.

Patent infringing is fun cause we get an unfair advantage over the rest of the industry and all we have to do is make the small company fold up by chasing away investors before the litigation is done.

I think I will take my vacation in Jamacia this year.

Oh and make sure you sell and do not invest here! I am counting on you!

nobody12378 said...

If you think that all the "money that they stole" is going back to the common shareholders if/when damages are paid; I have one word for you -- delusional. Where do you get that impression?

Anonymous said...

10:35 i have been reading and agree with you....but why no one able to swing real financing and dump this yag dilution approach to raising financing?...perhaps gers thinks winning will repair the dilution damage by repurchasing shares from the proceeds...no idea

nobody12378 said...

Are the disciples finally departing?

Anonymous said...

I don't know, are you?

Anonymous said...

As a patent attorney and a stockholder I assure you that this will go on for years. More times then not, the patent holder does not have the resources to continue the fight. I hope that Greenshift is the exception. There will be no willful intent or triple damages because I suspect all are operating with patent invalidity opinions. Let the courts do there job and the attorney's do there's. The rest is just folly and entertainment.

Anonymous said...

God Nobody grow up! Just because your investment and loss over the years didnt pan out doesnt mean that we all have to be brought down with you. Your just a bitter person that obviously is suffering from envy over patents that are good versus your failed products.... yes.. I have been hear on the blog for a long time and remember your bio before your delete it it a long time ago. How you had your own bio/green inventions and patent pending ideas and business that no one else wanted nothing to do with and your business. Get a job man and grow up. Sell your stock and go use your higher education to do something more than blog all day.

Anonymous said...

skunk thinks this should have a market cap of 2 billion..then that is a 40 dollar stock..i like it

Anonymous said...

It seems like people keep forgetting, or are ignorant and think that Nobody is here for the investors, that GreenShift's income is RESIDUAL.

The idea that the defendants will keep this litigation going until GERS goes bankrupt is rediculous. They have residual income each quarter from the license royalties, and are continuing, slowly, to gain more contracts, with more residual income.

Where as a company like ICM is only making money at point of purchase, GreenShift is making continual income. And customers understand it's worth it's value as they are producing far higher yeilds than any of ICM's systems.

GERS can afford to fight this for a long time. Defendants should realize the "run-em-down" tactic doesn't work on a company with high levels of residual income.

If they're smart, the defendants will save themselves from going bankrupt and just settle. At this point, will all the evidence and failed prior arguments, it's inevitable that GERS will win this case.

Anonymous said...

priceline made william shatner rich...we are going to be rich!

Anonymous said...

what broke the penny intraday....no demand for this lovely piece

Anonymous said...

I remember very clearly there was a Nobody touting a settlement and not demanding the most from DvG.....

You´re not laughed at for nothing, let that be a solace for you and your 4 way predictions.

nobody12378 said...

If you do not change your view with new information why attempt to find new information? You sound like the Catholic Church when confronted with the "news" that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Anonymous said...

There is no current demand for this stock because only current investors know about it.

Anyone that happens to stumble upon it just has to search up on any GERS board and see B.S. panic posts from Nobody, Tadaa, and the other losers, and that'll scare them away.

Their panic posts and consistently negative views masked under their phrase "objective questioning" has to stop.

So I'd say we don't need financing for the stock to go up. We just need some good PR and for the bashers like Nobody and Tadaa to stop posting their rideric everywhere, and this thing could really take off.

Again, everyone, why would Nobody or Tadaa be invested in a company they have absolutely no faith in and constantly post about their lack of faith? Any normal person who actually thought that, would have gotten themselves out a long time ago. They wouldn't be constantly posting negative theories and spinning every little detail into a death march. They'd get out, and shut up.

Why can't Nobody or Tadaa do that? Because there's obviously a hidden negative motive, all though not too hidden. But unless you're contantly on the boards reading posts, new onlookers are going to take them seriously.

And anyone truly invested in GERS wouldn't constantly try to scare away new and current investors. It just doesn't make sense.

Ugh, they really frustrate me!

Anonymous said...

Still not sub penny I guess your sad about that nobody

nobody12378 said...

I am glad you got that off your chest, now maybe you can look beyond your belief system and attempt to address reality. And what the heck is "rideric"? Gosh, GERS must have taken all your pennies as to not be able to own a spell-checker.

Anonymous said...

Geez Nobody, exaggerating small, useless details (like correct spelling) to avoid facing the blatant and large details (like constant bashing, panic posts, twisted theories cloaked under the term "objective questioning").

You sound like a republican candidate.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:40, sorry to burst your bubble. Nobody is a professed liberal, which does explain a lot about his posts. As you say, "bashing, panic posts, twisted theories cloaked under the term objective questioning."

Anonymous said...

Can´t imagine you found some `new information` These past 6 years you found all the information you did not wanted to see when you invested.

Difficult for you to understand the concept of DD, otherwise you would have known that before you threw in your first cent, what to expect.

What is all the harping good for you´ll end up accusing other people off laughing at you.

I have no problem with the way this ship is steered and steering and that has nothing to do with not wanting to see, but with having seen it already.

Anonymous said...

i didnt see icm state the date icm started spewing its junk on the market. anybody know?

Anonymous said...

all known facts are reflected in share price...price keeps going down

Anonymous said...

neilbody 757 250 1132 1022 1012

Anonymous said...

from the tpo website:


III. SALE OF A PROCESS

A claimed process, which is a series of acts or steps, is not sold in the same sense as is a claimed product, device, or apparatus, which is a tangible item. "'Know-how' describing what the process consists of and how the process should be carried out may be sold in the sense that the buyer acquires knowledge of the process and obtains the freedom to carry it out pursuant to the terms of the transaction. However, such a transaction is not a 'sale' of the invention within the meaning of § 102(b) because the process has not been carried out or performed as a result of the transaction." In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326, 1332, 62 USPQ2d 1425, 1429 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, sale of a product made by the claimed process by the patentee or a licensee would constitute a sale of the process within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See id. at 1333, 62 USPQ2d at 1429; D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 1147-48, 219 USPQ 13, 15-16 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Even though the sale of a product made by a claimed method before the critical date did not reveal anything about the method to the public, the sale resulted in a "forfeiture" of any right to a patent to that method); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1550, 220 USPQ 303, 310 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The application of 35 U.S.C. 102(b) would also be triggered by actually performing the claimed process itself for consideration. See Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 269 F.3d 1321, 1328, 60 USPQ2d 1687, 1691(Fed. Cir. 2001) (Patent was held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) based on patentee's offer to perform the claimed process for treating oil refinery waste more than one year before filing the patent application). Moreover, the sale of a device embodying a claimed process may trigger the on-sale bar. Minton v. National Ass'n. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding a fully operational computer program implementing and thus embodying the claimed method to trigger the on-sale bar). However, the sale of a prior art device different from that disclosed in a patent that is asserted after the critical date to be capable of performing the claimed method is not an on-sale bar of the process. Poly-America LP v. GSE Lining Tech. Inc., 383 F.3d 1303, 1308-09, 72 USPQ2d 1685, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that the transaction involving the sale of the prior art device did not involve a transaction of the claimed method but instead only a device different from that described in the patent for carrying out the claimed method, where the device was not used to practice the claimed method until well after the critical date, and where there was evidence that it was not even known whether the device could perform the claimed process).

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2133_03_c.htm

 
Free Blog CounterTamron