Don't know what you have been watching for 10 years, but it seems your eyes were closed a bit during that time.
Google the name and you will "know/see" and have your answer...
As for the "ruling" re: non-infringement"...again I say your eyes must have been closed. The latest "ruling" re: the suit against V/MC was that V/MC were not responsible for the infringement because the judge concluded they had NO control over the card and how it functioned. TO YOUR POINT: V/MC then asked the judge to rule the "patent 464" to be invalid. The judge then ruled the patent to be VALID...YES A VALID PATENT.
I SUGGEST, when you are able to "see" again you review the comments and press releases posted on this board or elsewhere and "see" for yourself what is going on with this company...
And when you become wealthy from your investment in SMME, be sure to thank Chaya for sharing with us her ideas and inventions....
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
