InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 165
Posts 19759
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 12/09/2004

Re: arvitar post# 213238

Saturday, 02/02/2013 2:45:19 PM

Saturday, February 02, 2013 2:45:19 PM

Post# of 312015
Your misunderstanding of the patent laws is interfering with your analysis of JBI and it's prospects.

For example, expired patents count as prior art, but have no legal standing.

Furthermore, most patents cite prior art in the application as does JBI. It is the improvement on the prior art that is the patentable aspect.

If the truth be known, I suspect that very few pyrolysis patents will withstand a court challenge since pyrolysis has a very long history. Since there has been little prior financial success with pyrolysis there have been no court challenges that I am aware of on pyrolysis patents.

It maters not. JBI has figured out how to make pyrolysis work well. The catalyst in a key part of that as are the numerous engineering details. All of which can be kept as trade secrets.

As far as the engineering details go, those would possibly qualify for patent protection as improvement on prior art. JBI will have to decide if it want's to disclose those details in a patent or will be better off keeping them as a trade secret.

OMG! It's an Inverted Spinglefluke formation. Nothing left to do except release the KRAKEN.