We Were Wrong, but . . .

AI says they didn't know that the veteran defendants use additives.  Even though it is common in the industry to use additives and that is the business they are in.  They now admit they were mistaken. 

Is it reasonable to assume they have been telling their own customers and potential customers that the defendants in this lawsuit did not use additives?   After all, they claim to have believed that and why not tell your customers what you believe? 

Is it also reasonable to assume that they used this mistaken information to move product?  "Use our additives and protect yourself from GreenShift royalties and its patent lawsuit?"

Is it also reasonable to at least explore the possibility that AI's argument and subsequent withdrawal was a good way to establish ignorance of the veteran defendant's use of additives as a matter of record? 

Imagine the litigation potential from AI's customer base if AI had suggested that the use of additives protected customers from GreenShift royalties and subsequent patent litigation?  As discovery expands to the AI customer base, and the AI customer base is also (potentially) included in this litigation, establishing AI ignorance now, of the use of additives by the veteran defendants, potentially helps AI thwart (or lessen) litigation by their own customers against AI in the future.

See Here

 
SkunK