Ontheedge,
"It was the naysayers who yaked about how CDEX's patent(s) had nothing in them. Now, along comes a suit about patent infringement, and the naysayers jump at running down CDEX, while they forget that they claimed CDEX's patent(s) were nothing."
Sounds like your prodding me for a comment Edgster! LOL
As you well know, my problem with Loch/CDEX has always been the claims of the "revolutionary" XRF technolgy (it appears that CDEx finally dropped the word "revolutionary" from their product description.) and all the BS that transpired thereafter.
Exactly like Rottenapple has expressed.
The only patent I have questioned and opined on is patent application 10/268,678 which is the one based solely on x-ray fluorescence.
Check the records Edge, I have never commented on any other subsequent patent which are all based on UV fluorescence. I haven't even read them all the way through.
My beef has always been with the outrageous claims of the original XRF tech which were allowed to slowly die on the vine and be replaced with a UV tech which they continued to call revolutionary.
I've made the comparison between the old performance claims of the "revolutionary" ELF/EM-1 with the real world performance capabilities of Valimed several times.
I still don't know why the UV tech was called revolutionary and it appears that no one else knew either because no one could every give me an answer. Not even the all knowing dynamic dual- Kidinsight and Ontheedge! LOL
BTW, Have you notice that the new buzz word is "breakthrought".
