"...but I would MUCH rather believe that this company has my best interest at heart, not to mention their OWN...I don't think MM or SM would be putting themselves or this company in the public light if they were thinking they MIGHT end up in jail. Just IMO"

You would think so, but unfortunately that is not how the penny stock players view it, they think they will get away with stripping all the money out of shareholders pockets by any means necessary. They also think they are doing you a favor by lightening your savings account and that we all deserve losing our money to them for our stupidity. They think what they are doing is legal and that they will never go to jail (which actually is likely). Greed is a powerful player on both sides of the fence. I have seen it many times, in the end those players will get a 'don't do it again' slap on the fingers by the SEC, the company will evaporate into nothing (get your 'Spongetech hype' collectible sponge now) and shareholders will get nothing. Watch and see...

If Dicon (now Spongetech) was the assignee of the patent, they are actually required to change it to the new Company name (Spongetech). However I don't know how to search the patent office for those papers.
Yes probably everybody here has used some of my inventions, but it is unlikely you own it. Of course I am not the assignee in any of them, I got paid to invent them.

I have to say wow, although I'm not really surprised at the latest "Vanity events" discoveries. Mgmt has no credibility IMO.

Looks like Tom now is cashing in his chips on Hcke. SWVC is already back close to the dreaded no bid. Now he is withdrawing cash by selling HCKE shares. Weeeeee. Oh and he claims he was duped by the Hacketts family LOL, no LMAO.

LOL, shareholders have been busy submitting glorified reviews to promote the product. Why do I say shareholders? Because look on the right side and you see the other product viewed by the "customers". Coincidence? I doubt it.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed
SpongeTech Car Wash & Wax Sponge

SpongeTech Car Wash & Wax Sponge by SpongeTech
7 Reviews
5 star:
(5)
4 star:
(2)
3 star: (0)
2 star: (0)
1 star: (0)

› See all 7 customer reviews...
4.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (7)
1 used & new from $5.20
SpongeTech Detail & Degreaser Sponge

SpongeTech Detail & Degreaser Sponge by SpongeTech
1 used & new from $5.50
WINNING COLOURS MULTI-CLEANER

WINNING COLOURS MULTI-CLEANER by Winning Brands
3 Reviews
5 star:
(3)
4 star: (0)
3 star: (0)
2 star: (0)
1 star: (0)

› See all 3 customer reviews...
5.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (3)
Buy new: $18.64
In Stock

"Every patent ever granted is 'unique.'"
Well, it is supposed to be unique and novel, but that is not always the case. Sometimes both the inventor and the examiner overlook prior art, a patent gets issued that is not novel. The original inventor then can challenge that patent in courts. In fact there even is a grey area, as per the rules, an invention not only has to be novel but it also cannot be obvious. For example, if an existing invention is suggesting 3 axle trucks to handle increased loads, then a patent filing proposing four axle trucks to handle increased loads would be rejected. You can see how this can lead to disputable situations.

the assignee has all the rights to the patent. H.H. Brown could have sold the rights to Dicon, then Dicon would be the assignee:

Assignments and Licenses

A patent is personal property and may be sold to others or mortgaged; it may be bequeathed by a will; and it may pass to the heirs of a deceased patentee. The patent law provides for the transfer or sale of a patent, or of an application for patent, by an instrument in writing. Such an instrument is referred to as an assignment and may transfer the entire interest in the patent. The assignee, when the patent is assigned to him or her, becomes the owner of the patent and has the same rights that the original patentee had.

The statute also provides for the assignment of a part interest, that is, a half interest, a fourth interest, etc., in a patent. There may also be a grant that conveys the same character of interest as an assignment but only for a particularly specified part of the United States. A mortgage of patent property passes ownership thereof to the mortgagee or lender until the mortgage has been satisfied and a retransfer from the mortgagee back to the mortgagor, the borrower, is made. A conditional assignment also passes ownership of the patent and is regarded as absolute until canceled by the parties or by the decree of a competent court.

An assignment, grant, or conveyance of any patent or application for patent should be acknowledged before a notary public or officer authorized to administer oaths or perform notarial acts. The certificate of such acknowledgment constitutes prima facie evidence of the execution of the assignment, grant, or conveyance.

Back to the Top
Recording of Assignments

The Office records assignments, grants, and similar instruments sent to it for recording, and the recording serves as notice. If an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or an interest in a patent (or an application for patent) is not recorded in the Office within three months from its date, it is void against a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, unless it is recorded prior to the subsequent purchase.

An instrument relating to a patent should identify the patent by number and date (the name of the inventor and title of the invention as stated in the patent should also be given). An instrument relating to an application should identify the application by its application number and date of filing, the name of the inventor, and title of the invention as stated in the application should also be given. Sometimes an assignment of an application is executed at the same time that the application is prepared and before it has been filed in the Office. Such assignment should adequately identify the application, as by its date of execution and name of the inventor and title of the invention, so that there can be no mistake as to the application intended. If an application has been assigned and the assignment is recorded, on or before the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will be issued to the assignee as owner. If the assignment is of a part interest only, the patent will be issued to the inventor and assignee as joint owners.

http://www.uspto.gov/go/pac/doc/general/#assignments

correct

OT, I'm very much aware how the patent system works as I have over 25 patents with my name on it. When I read the HH Browns patent, it looks like it is a copy from prior art. Sometimes examiners overlook other patents especially when the other patent is not cited. Either way, all the other hydrophilic sponge patents make HH Browns patent weaker. If you go to hydrophilix llc website, you see they make the same kind of products as Spongetech. I did an extensive search way back and found a load of companies selling "soap filled sponges" including little animal shapes for kids. All that translates to me, is that the patents that Spongetech relies upon are very weak, and they could lose if their patent is challenged.

I can't know for sure, maybe a shareholder came in and hid the 5 sponge packs behind another shelf so that management restocked all 5 sponges.

I just came back from the CVS store I talked about. I went straight to the "as seen on TV" shelf and guess what? All 5 sponges I saw weeks ago, are still sitting on the shelf collecting dust at $9.99 each. No wonder I haven't seen anybody ever use the sponge (except shareholders on the internet and that TV station that gave it two thumbs down).
P.S. that other patent belongs to the competition.

Oldtymer, Spongetech's patents are worthless IMO. How HH BRowns patent got issued is a mystery to me, as it contains no new art IMO and is missing references to a lot of prior art. Hydrophilic sponges have been around for many years in some form or another. Look at the patent below and pay special attention to claim 13, this patent was submitted/issued before the HH Brown patent, but the HH Brown patent does not cite this patent:

Patent number: 6617014
Filing date: Mar 31, 2000
Issue date: Sep 9, 2003
Application number: 9/540,099

Note patent is older that the H.H. Brown patent and again not cited by the H.H. Brown patent but read this (see my bold):

What is claimed is:

1. A foam composite comprising:

a scaffold of a substantially reticulated hydrophobic polyurethane foam, said scaffold having a plurality of surfaces defining a plurality of pores; and
a coating of a substantially open cell hydrophilic polyurethane foam disposed upon said plurality of surfaces of said hydrophobic polyurethane foam;
wherein said foam composite exhibits structural characteristics of said hydrophobic polyurethane foam and absorbency characteristics of said open cell hydrophilic polyurethane foam.

2. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said coating is from about 1% to about 90% by weight of said foam composite.

3. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said coating is prepared by the in situ deposition of a hydrophilic polyurethane prepolymer from a solution of said polymer in a nonreactive solvent.

4. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said open cell hydrophilic polyurethane foam comprises the polymerization products of an isocyanate-capped polyether prepolymer having an isocyanate functionality from about 5% by weight to about 15% by weight of said prepolymer.

5. The foam composite of claim 4, wherein said isocyanate-capped polyether prepolymer has an isocyanate functionality from about 6% by weight to about 90% by weight of said prepolymer.

6. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said foam composite has a pore size distribution from about 4 pores per linear inch to about 100 pores per linear inch.

7. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said foam composite has a void volume from about 20% to about 98%.

8. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said foam composite has a surface area from about 100 ft2 per cube foot to about 2,000 ft2 per cubic foot of foam composite.

9. The foam composite of claim 8, wherein said foam composite has a surface area of from about 300 ft2 per cubic foot to about 2000 ft2 per cubic foot of foam composite and a pore size distribution in the range from about 10 pore/linear inch to about 95 pore/linear inch.

10. The foam composite of claim 1, wherein said hydrophilic polyurethane coating further comprises an additive.

11. The foam composite of claim 1, further comprising a non-bioactive ingredient or a bioaffecting agent.

12. The foam composite of claim 11, wherein said non-bioactive ingredient or said bioaffecting agent is immobilized within said foam composite.

13. The foam composite of claim 12, wherein said bioaffecting agent is selected from the group consisting of pharmaceuticals, fragrances, soaps, yeasts, herbicides, pesticides, enzymes, bacteria, algae, plants, animal cells, human cells, and mixtures thereof.

14. The foam composite of claim 11, wherein said bioaffecting agent is grafted onto said non-bioactive ingredient.

15. A composition of matter comprising:

a volume of substantially reticulated hydrophobic polyurethane foam having a plurality of pores within the structure thereof, the surfaces of said pores being coated with hydrophilic polyurethane foam.

16. A composition of matter as recited in claim 15 wherein the weight of said hydrophilic polyurethane foam is from 0.01 to 15 times that of said hydrophobic polyurethane foam.

17. A composition of matter as recited in claim 15 wherein the surface area of the coated pores is from 100 ft2/ft3 to about 2,000 ft2/ft3.

18. A composition of matter comprising:

a volume of substantially reticulated hydrophobic polyurethane foam having from 4 to about 100 pores per linear inch and a void volume of up to 98%, said pores having a total surface area measured by the BET method of up to 2,000 ft2/ft3, and
hydrophilic polyurethane foam coated on the surface of said pores.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6617014

"...the car wash sponges are being discounted like they are almost ready for 99 Cent Stores liquidation."

99 cents is exactly the price these car wash sponges should sell for. Then they would match competition prices and would have a chance of being sold. However, I doubt that the company will be able to continue its advertising campaign forever. Just like the sponges, the sp will be discounted as well, and that will be detrimental for the companies financial picture. Of course, there is a remote possibility that the SEC steps in before this happens.

LOL, no offense intended. I sure hope you do get your punches in and your money back.

A 50% loss is a big loss, and just the fact that you admit to have lost that much shows you are honest and genuinely concerned about WNBD stock. If you believe that the stock will continue to decline, then the only answer should be: "sell sell sell". Of course taking a loss is always a lot tougher than taking a gain.

I was wondering, if the Form D selling continues or if some of the faithful are losing their patience. I think you have answered my question.

.0002 x .0003 that's after two reverse splits: one for five and one for one thousand. Ouch, yes, I'm familiar with that kind of free fall of a share price and I'm watching closely, as I have been told that this is a long term investment not to be looked at for 4-5 years after the buy and hold. Are you still long and strong?

"this could be a plan that would be completed by eoy...drop it already."
Then why announce it now, why not announce it when it happens? This has the touch, smell and feel of a company pump!

So much for reducing the A/S to 900 million.

Where is Knopick, or is his contract up already?

I hope it's not the Patriots, I would hate to see my favorite team associated with Spongetech.

"Also please explain how you came up with 2 sponges per store on average."

Why not 2 sponges, going by my own observations it would be 0 sponges, that would make the calculation really easy. Besides my "they are flying of the shelf" calculation assuming an average of 10 sponges, is also included.

"calls for an investment fund to acquire the debt in equal monthly installments until it has been acquired in full."

That means more dilution for those that haven't seen it before.

40,000 retail outlets that on average maybe sold 2 sponges? 80,000 x $7.99 = $639,200 in collectible total revenue. Lets be really generous and say they sold 10 sponges. That would then make it $3.196 million in collectible revenue. Not good, considering what they spend on advertising. Of course the ads are more targeted towards investors than real customers.

I doubt that the float is only 200 million. As for FTD's, I would guess maybe 5 million shares, until harvard homeboys grandmother finds her shares that is.

yes, isn't that what I was assuming?

CNBC shows SPNG:NASDAQ
It does that for all OTCBB companies.

We have a brand new CVS in our neighborhood, They had 5 sponges day 1 and 5 sponges 3 days later on the shelf. Of course I had to fight my way through that big Spongetech shareholder crowd to the "as seen on TV" shelf in order to count them. I will visit again and see if anything changed.
On another note, I have yet to see a single person in my neighborhood wash their car with a Spongetech sponge. If they sold $50 million (or whatever those announced numbers were) worth of sponges (that is about 6 million sponges) shouldn't one of 50 Americans (including kids, grandma and grandpa) have a sponge by now?

Down again today? This is becoming rather painful. I think Eric now needs to pull a new rabbit out of the head or this will go back to sub penny.

But SPNG is partnering with the Jets weeeee. Who cares about prices, margins, profits and silly stuff like that.

"The company’s number of shares authorized is now only 900 million..."
http://theotcinvestor.com/spongetech-sees-continued-growth-388/

Oh please please show me that this is true and I will apologize for being wrong.

No? the A/S is 900 million now? Please provide some proof.

"The company’s number of shares authorized is now only 900 million, while it has been repurchasing..."

Yes that claim is utterly false. Of course that site is nothing bud a paid stock tout site. Haven't found SPNG payment in the disclaimer yet, but wouldn't be surprised if they weren't paid.

http://theotcinvestor.com/disclaimer/

I think it has been two years since shareholders have been promised the announcement of a national account in the US. I don't mind an overenthusiastic CEO, but if the thing falls through, I think it would be only fair that that is announced as well. Credibility, honesty and openness should be every CEO's guiding light. Eric is letting us down on at least two of the three fronts. IMO

.134 x .1342 that's a fact! Well it was, sp is falling...

Volume is good, close to 100 million traded so far. That's 100 billion pre-split shares or 1/2 trillion of the original Seaway shares.

I knew it all along, it's the naked longs fault that we have FTD's and are on the Regsho list. LOL

If I remember correctly, that's where that target group (women 25-40) supposedly is according to Spongetech. I was a little baffled myself.

thanks, happy someone can explain it!

That's good to read!