". . . approximately 80 percent of the operating ethanol capacity in the U.S. will have incorporated oil extraction into their plants by end 2013."
See Here
SkunK
COE
The industry has gone from skimming settling tanks; to a mechanical process that actually works (GreenShift's); to adding solvents to supplement GreenShift's multi-patented mechanical operation; to now adding an enzyme cocktail prior to fermentation to aid in both ethanol and mechanical corn oil production.
Enzymes have been around the industry forever, however they are now designing and marketing them as COE enhancers. Corn Oil - You've come a long way baby!
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
All this sounds great, but it looks like Cantrell screwed the pooch in 2003 and 2004.
That communication was not for sale but to try.
looks can be deceiving!
please read the email and detail for us how you arrive at that conclusion.
thanx.
Is that you Freedom? Sounds like a similar concern:
"He sent the email of a "purchase" offer letter 15 days too soon, before they had filed for the provisional application on 8/18/03.
I court rules the letter was an actual offer and not for testing patents are invalidated for on sale bar.
I don't like that the court is skeptical of the late submissions to the PTO and allowed an additional deposition of Michael Rye. Though he's slick an should explain his resoning well for delaying and also for never mentioning testing at Agri in June/July 2003.
I'm probably just parinoid. This is basically all the Defendents have left to fight."
Sale bar rule allows for testing. The letter is a offer to test. Is this all the defendants have left? If so this is over.
In case any one is still interested the following are the dates of the last five Q2 filings:
8/13/2012
8/9/2011
8/23/2010
8/24/2009
8/14/2008
That is a 15 day spread -- so don't get too anxious.
Looks like our little hiatus in reading "double" dribble has ended.
Oops, I meant hiatus "from", not "in".
On May 28, 2013 the Court reset the settlement conference for July 22, 2013 at 9:30 AM. The May 16, 2013 order remained in effect, which required the parties to have in attendance at the conference representatives that were empowered to enter into a binding settlement (agreement). It has now been over a week since this was to occur and nothing has been made public. One would suspect that the parties were required to file a brief with the Court summarizing the outcome of this conference; no agreement, an agreement, and/or existence of a basis for further discussion. If this was filed with the Court I would also suspect that the Skunk would have posted a link on this blog.
I have stated my belief that this conference would not be productive and the reasons why. However, whatever the outcome, would we hear and when? Further, did the filing of the Writ Mandamus with the Appellate Court by the defendants automatically put this conference on hold and if so when could it be rescheduled?
A little searching found this summarizing the Supreme Court's view of a Writ of Mandamus: "The [Supreme] Court also noted that mandamus is available only in exceptional cases because it is so disruptive of the judicial process, creating disorder and delay in the trial."
This statement seems to increase the possibility that the settlement conference is on hold.
On I-Hub Freedom43 made this point:
"In addition, The Lead defense attourny was on vacation until 7/26 or so."
This surely means that the settlement conference did not occur last week and we have no idea if/when it has been rescheduled.
" nobody12378 Tuesday, July 30, 2013 10:47:04 AM
Re: None Post # of 35255
Absolutely no interest at all, either way."
Must be referring to his own lame, repetitive comments!
haha n0b0dy is back afyer i scholed him. he way weak with argue now just lose battle like always then cry and start new subjekt. gers king trader dream learn make moeny
Post a Comment