InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 4
Posts 2173
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/23/2010

Re: usandy post# 57106

Friday, 08/17/2012 2:59:40 PM

Friday, August 17, 2012 2:59:40 PM

Post# of 60938
>>He said $100 million would be outside the range someone would pay for it because it is so broad it could be more easily challenged,<<

Bullshit alert. A patent, by definition, is not broad. It is technically specific and has to show being unique. The Wrights tried to patent the airplane for 20 years and lost every round. They were able to patent their specific airplane, but as we know, an airplane can be built in many ways (i.e. ailerons vs. wing warping, rudder aft instead of rudder forward, etc.) They spent all their effort trying to patent the airplane and so little effort trying to refine it that they became also-rans and never produced a single commercially successful airplane after 1908. The CLYW patent is technically unique. Unless someone comes up with another one that is unique and does the same job, our patent is all there is for seamless switching. The likely criminal activities of the BOC and certain investors are what has kept money from us owners. Of course, an outside source is going to claim the patent is uninforcable.
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.