Replies to post #34792 on Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

[nobody12378]

This is not unexpected. The timing is very intriguing -- entering into another legal front with an entirely different law firm; Wilke, Fleury, Hoffett, Gould & Birney of Sacramento, CA -- NOT Cantor & Colburn of Hartford, CT. Cantor & Colburn has the technical and legal details of this particular litigation (COE) down to a science and have clearly won most of the court battles to date and would have NO learning curve with initiating this new suit. Cantor & Colburn also have a financing agreement with GERS ($50,000 per month) that is not in place with the new law firm that must have a new retainer and new financing.

Does this mean that GERS is dissatisfied with Cantor & Colburn? Does this mean that Cantor & Colburn thought it unwise to enter into a second front (as the Germans did against the Russians in WW II with disastrous results) but KK needed more vengeance and decided not to follow this advice? Until the reasons are known this must be VERY troubling for GERS' common shareholders -- based on the the last several filings the only method GERS has to finance this second front is through massive dilution that will likely lead to more R/Ss.

The only justification for this action NOW (beyond satisfying vengeance) would be a pending settlement of the MDL suit so that adequate funds would soon be available to commence the second front. If such a settlement is not forth coming this action may be an act of fiduciary irresponsibility. This action also begs the question why it is so difficult for GERS to MARKET its superior technology and can only bring some of the businesses to the table through costly and lengthy litigation?

[Slashnuts]

You're mistaken. The lawsuit GERS' filed against patent infringing PEIX specifically mentions the Stockton, CA plant. This plant is infringing with Edeniq's equipment, not ICM's. The Edeniq system is the same equipment that ANDE settled the lawsuit with when they purchased Amaizing Energy. Both Edeniq and ICM's equipment extract a product that's mostly oil from syrup, patented by GERS.

Although it mentions PEIX may be infringing at other plants, Stockton is infringing now. ICM may have over-extended their "promise". In the past, they've completed these projects quickly, averaging 2-3 months. Majic Valley has been delayed for 10 months and will not be completed until Q3. Either the layoffs have hindered ICM's ability to complete projects on time, or the revised Markman ruling has softned their "we don't care" attitude.

As I've explained before, ICM led PEIX to believe that "under a proper interpretation of GERS' patents, they don't infringe." This was BEFORE the judge ruled against ICM. PEIX inked the deal BEFORE the good judge ruled against ICM's idea of a proper interpretation that was dreamed up in Kansas.

The problem lies with PEIX as the equipment is in their plants. The act of infringement takes place when PEIX practices the patented methods on their property.

Now pay close attention, ICM does not own the pioneering patents for centrifuging oil from syrup. Their systems clearly infringe as they rely on GERS' patents in order to get the oil out. Oil extraction was not obvious to anyone in the field at the time. If it was, ICM would not have needed to reverse engineer the systems they bought when GERS revealed the methods under a non-disclosure agreement.