Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Minor Orders

Unseal it Here

Claim 30 invalid

SkunK

20 comments:

  1. Use the GERS' filings and their patents for biodiesel -- more valuable as that. ICM will start a public campaign to completely discredit GERS and there will be no buyers of the stock. The next dilution bolus sends this to 0.0001. Where it will stay until BK is filed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1 in 3 are reversed (average). I give it a 50/50 shot. Next to 0% chance ICM has any recourse through the Supremes after that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. IF it is reversed and we go to trial remember that we have trial judge that has had his tail feathers singed and will be unfriendly to GERS. No matter how you cut this the losses will mount, the dilution will continue and the commons pay-off, IF there ever is one is now many years away. No one in their right mind would buy this stock now knowing that either BK is coming or a long protracted fight to recover damages. All the while we will suffer massive dilution and more R/S exacerbated by the virtually worthless value of the stock for the foreseeable future. There is no way to approach this with "rose-colored" glasses. Anyone still holding GERS stock is out of luck -- the recent ruling makes that fact is immutable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now that YAGI knows that their collateral (the patents) is virtually worthless and their 30% of the court awarded damages non-existent; the flood gates should open very soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Strong case for appeal. Two government entities, the patent office and this lower court, interpreted the same document differently. Court of appeals will side with one of these entities. 50% chance reversal, next to 0% recourse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jury's decision not a judge with tail feathers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thank zeuss that nobody has sold his millions of shares he bought for just-in-case today...huh? price did not change and few shares traded. never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, it is definitely my fault that Cantrell in 2003 did not put a large font header on all "testing" communications -- THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED IN ANY WAY AS A SOLICITATION TO SELL OR MARKET THIS EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, IT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING A TESTING PROTOCOL.

    It is clear that he sent the subject email without attorney review and we may all suffer the consequences of that action.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh Bullshit. Letter starts out saying the POTENTIAL to recover oil. The word test/testing is there 45 times!! 45 times!! Nowhere is applying heat mentioned, the key to it being reduced to practice. Reversal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My IP attorney friends beg to disagree. The fact that the judge had any leeway to make his finding bears out the validity of their position. The fact that we are now in legal limbo, that we will incur substantial additional delays, dilution and R/S as a necessity to develop the funds to pay the appeal bond, the extra legal costs, etc, also prove you were in error Mr. Cantrell.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's because your friends are ICM's lawyers DUH!917

    ReplyDelete
  12. Strong case for appeal. Two government entities, the patent office and this lower court, interpreted the same document differently. Court of appeals will side with one of these entities. 50% chance reversal, next to 0% recourse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Happens all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Who's the wise guy at GS that taught ICM how it worked? Should be fired! Never should've disclosed it to the Invention Copying Mother$%#&^%$

    ReplyDelete
  15. A "sealed" order and ICM does a PR Release?!! I guess this is the current pattern of the Justice System! Progress; as defined by Progressives! MOO Dhole

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Nowhere is applying heat mentioned, the key to it being reduced to practice. Reversal."


    whats the temperature of the syrup leaving the evaporator? why has that information been [redacted] from the filings?

    ReplyDelete
  17. if 1 + 1= 2 does .... the key to invalidity + redaction = fraud?

    ReplyDelete
  18. At what point in the stream? 2 feet from the evaporator? 50 feet from the evaporator? 36 feet?

    ReplyDelete
  19. what was the normal average temperature of the syrup stream leaving Agri-Energy's evaporator(s) in 2003 at 1 foot, 25 foot and 50 foot intervals?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nobody knows. He knows everything.

    ReplyDelete