Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Buried Deep Within . . .

Words matter.  Markman construction demonstrated that.  Dave Winsness described a "confidentiality agreement" signed with ICM in 2004.  Now we have a mush stronger word used.  Citing a document created by ICM and produced during discovery by a third party - Husker AG - GERS releases this bombshell:  We have a signed non-compete agreement with ICM! 

"ICM first developed an interest in extracting corn oil from the concentrated thin stillage stream in ethanol plants in or around 2004. See Ex.1 1 HA00176-181. During this time ICM signed a non-compete agreement in order to gain access to inventor David Cantrell’s patented technology at issue in this litigation. Ex. 1." (Ex. 1 [and others] are presently sealed awaiting a court ruling.)

In the past the agreement made with ICM in 2004 that allowed them access to Greenshift's patented technology was simply described as a "confidentiality agreement" [#7, page 3].
Apparently it is that and more.  It is a non-compete agreement.  Which defense lawyer will present a straight faced argument to the court that ICM has not - and is not - competing with GreenShift for the COES market?

SkunK

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Skunk,

Unfortunately, I am afraid all that we have at this time is MUSH!

" Now we have a mush ... "

Anonymous said...

Icm is screwed

Anonymous said...

Hey man, have you looked at the value of your GERS' portfolio lately? Tell me who is really screwed?

Anonymous said...

Notice how ICM has assigned a goofball to this blog now? Old timers will remember "mark this post" as a signature trustworthy slogan from years ago on raging bull. He and nobody always posted.

I thought he was here and a few days ago he let it slip "mark this post he says!"

This guy has been here since the beginning. So has nobody. hmmmm . . . . what am I thinking???

Anonymous said...

blablabla -->0.0001 coming

Anonymous said...

You really cannot be thinking IF you have been here since the beginning.

Anonymous said...

"By: trustworthy
07 Feb 2010, 11:34 AM CST
Rating: post rating 5 Msg. 9487 of 10433
Jump to msg. #
March 31, 2010 price target 0.0001
Mark this post."

He was right on! Don't be so disparaging of those that can see the future and are not afraid to tell of it.

Anonymous said...

"ICM's R&D Commentary."
Thats research and development, right?

Kaboom!

Anonymous said...

Right before his deposition. haha.

Anonymous said...

[b]Retired Admiral and Biofuel Fan Nominated to be Navy Energy Chief[/b]

http://news.usni.org/2013/07/09/retired-admiral-and-biofuel-fan-nominated-to-be-navy-energy-chief

Hope something good comes out of this...

Anonymous said...

Where is .ooo1 now? I told you ICM.12 days of Christmas my true love gave to me ha ha ha!!!!

Anonymous said...

trustworthy had over ten thousand posts on raging bull?

some one tell me he was not getting paid to try and run this company down?

10,000 posts? thats a job baby!

Anonymous said...

No, you forget the profitable, for him, concept of shorting the hell out of GERS and its predecessors (VDRM & SGCT). He made about $10,000 (or more) for every dollar invested. As you chortle your way to oblivion demeaning his actions, guess who is laughing all the way to the bank? This I know for a fact, that he is now a fat cat that no longer needs to bother with the antics and hysteria of the common shareholders here. He could literally buy out the commons and not even notice the hit to his estate. God bless capitalism, Wall Street and America, and finders of lost hopes.

Anonymous said...

Icms last stand on skunks blog last stand before they fall

Anonymous said...

f)
(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
(2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.

Anonymous said...

blablabla -->0.0001 coming

Anonymous said...

buy more

Anonymous said...

so ... he stopped shorting which means to me he could be expecting an uncontrollable rise. says he sold which means to me he is probably buying. says he is gone but most know he is still skulking around, slithering in and out of posts.

Anonymous said...

n0b0dy got skared when skunk n slash crushed him hard and now he cry under briudege asking for moneys from stranges, he bash hard but the wife need more she left for ICM guy with bigger cornstalk...trash b gones

Anonymous said...

Corn oil is used in the production of animal feed, biodiesel and soaps, and has become an increasingly important revenue stream for ethanol producers. Extensive implementation of extraction technology from 2008 to 2012 has seen the industry record a nearly five-fold increase in corn oil production, according to a study by the University of Illinois at Chicago. Novozymes estimates that approximately 80 percent of the operating ethanol capacity in the U.S. will have incorporated oil extraction into their plants by end 2013.

Anonymous said...

http://www.iptoday.com/issues/2012/03/top-patent-firms.asp

http://articles.courant.com/2013-06-02/community/hcrs-75768hc-greater-hartford-20130529_1_patent-trademark-office-prosecution

From GERS Q1 2012: "We have entered into a modified contingency-based agreement with Cantor Colburn, LLP, our lead counsel in our infringement litigation, pursuant to which we are only required to pay $50,000 per month in cash. Accordingly, most of the increased legal costs incurred during the quarter were non-cash."
The contingency-basing is important, it says that the law firm is certain of a larger pay-off than just charging for time.

Anonymous said...

The noose is tight
hands are bound
the floor door opens today

now he can watch what he built hang and rot away

Rip ICM

 
Free Blog CounterTamron