Replies to post #6623 on Charlestowne Premium Beverages Inc. (FPWM)

[catchet]

Hasher, Ok thanks. Much like the Patent Office still says too. No acquired by or assigned to LB or PWTC at the top of the battery patent like other patents say many times.
Wait now it says something different.
From
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search....
"Assignee: Advanced Patent Technology, Incorporated (Las Vegas, NV)"

Is that AS's company or someone else’s?

Wait wrong Snaper patent. Here's the battery one.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search...

And this from 2000 when the patent first came out and you would think it would have been assigned over to PWTC by then if sold to it before then. But no.
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06060198__

[MvnAlmn]

We need to be careful folks.
We shouldn't jump to any conclusions.

It may be very simple. IF, IF Mr Snaper SOLD his "rights" to the battery patent for a couple million shares of PWTC via a valid SIGNED document by all parties, he gave up ownership of the patent in the eyes of the law. PWTC's buying of the "rights" to the patent effectively transfers ownership of the patent.

Legally, it may be that simple. The courts will tell.

Legally, the agreement/contract/bill of sale/whatever, for the "rights" to the patent is the same as one of us buying the "rights" to an automobile. We may not be the "owners" on the Title at the state or county Div of Motor Vehicles at the moment, but all we have to do is "record" our sales "agreement" and the ownership/rights/title/WHATEVER, becomes ours. Correct?
It could be that simple.........and many of us have been saying that in so many MILLION words. Ha.

There may be statutes of limitations on claiming/filing/transfering/WHATEVER, the "ownership" at the Patent offices..............but I believe ol LB, BJ, PTI has that aspect covered................... somehow.<g>

JMHO

Bill O>