[For news on NWT Mint, see http://about.ag/NWTMint.htm]
[For research on bullion dealers, see http://BullionDealerData.com]




Forum
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
JG

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 991
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama
I want Charles bank accounts frozen,living at the Salvation Army or with relatives & eating dog food at this point. Why is he still getting to live his lifestyle on our money?


I see two reasons: first, he is considered innocent until proven guilty; second, the process is very slow.

With Tulving, I believe it took over a year from the time that the company shut down until criminal charges were filed. And in that case, the wheels had been turning for several months before the company shut down.

Remember, too, there is the chance that there are factors that we do not know about that. With the Tulving case, we later found out about millions of dollars that left the company that was not authorized.

0
GWest

Member
Registered:
Posts: 31
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWest
The notion of patenting software has come under considerable fire in the federal courts. ...


It is important to remember that this patent covers more than just the software; it covers other aspects including shipping, receiving payment, etc.

In the Tulving case, the seized numismatic coins were originally listed as being "worthless", now are believed to possibly be worth near what is owed. So stranger things could happen than the patent having significant value.

Dan Bensimon will get 4%-5% of revenue from Nucleo, which I believe would only realistically come from the patent and software (and if it comes from somewhere else, great!)


JG:

I have been through patent lawsuits. It is important to understand how they work out. These cases are rarely won or lost on a definitive basis. One closely-held corp I am involved with has medical device patents. One product, a safety syringe with an automatically deploying needle guard, has 131 separate patentable points. Each one of those points can be attacked as if it were a patent in itself. Some would be won and some lost. Another device for introducing a guide-wire for a heart catheter was attacked by one of the world's 50 largest corporations – while they were manufacturing it under a license from us. We won, but it took years and cost us millions. Still, they continued to hammer us with filings until they were ordered by the USPTO to stop. When you obtain a patent, this is the exposure you are accepting. When you buy a patent from someone else, you will inherit all these costs and risks. The public has this unrealistic notion that competitors will be obedient to your patent and just sit quietly on the sidelines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Getting the patent is easy. Defending it is the nightmare.

So the Nucleo patent clearly has multiple patentable points. Given the nature of a software patent, and considering how freely they were once issued, I would suggest that few if any of their patentable points would survive attack. For example, they may have filed for patent protection for some shipping procedure. They got the patent because they reduced that process to a computer algorithm. But today they would need to defend the novation of the shipping method itself, not just the method of producing a software solution. Mathematical equations and algorithms are not invented, they are discovered. Einstein couldn't patent his three most incredible equations that explain our physical universe. So did Nucleo invent some new method of shipping that was never deployed on this planet before Nucleo? This is what they would need to contend to protect that patentable point.

Here is an example of how a family member defeated someone's patent. My brother-in-law is an injection molding engineer. He and his company were sued for manufacturing a plastic cover for swimming pool equipment. A case was filed by a patent holder over the interlocking method of the cover. The defendants hired my lawyer, a retired USPTO department head. He found a sketch of that same interlocking technology in a German trade publication that was about 200 years old. The critical element of novation was lost. The patent holder lost the case, had to pay his costs and $400K for the defendant's costs, and lost all future value associated with the patent. Are you still confident that Nucleo invented some aspect of shipping that was never before seen in the history of the world? What would you pay for such a patent? I know where you can get a real bargain on a patent for swimming pool equipment.

At best, a few meager patentable points might survive for Nucleo. This is why software patents are a joke. The worst category amongst the software patents is the trading software. Nobody will pay for this patent. The most that can be expected is that someone might rent it under a license. That way, they can get the use of it while leaving the patent nightmares to someone else. If there is any value here, it will never survive the minefields and highwaymen to find its way to the creditors. Nothing here. Move along.

0
tappi

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #18 

There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Bensimon is your friend. I wonder who Bensimon is really working for. Are we really to believe that Bensimon intends to turn around this company so they can make good on their debts? That would require a magician. Warren Buffet couldn't pull off that miracle with this mess. Although Bensimon will cloak his involvement in the benefits to the creditors, there is no function he can perform to produce any net benefits to creditors. The business is shut down. There is no operation for this manager to manage other than invented and created purposes - like managing this valuable IP asset. If anyone anticipates any net benefit to this manager's involvement, please assert your theories. The estate surely doesn't need to hire a business manager just to sell off a patent. This scavenger is not there for you. I would be much more inclined to believe he is McCallister's plant. I suspect the only reason he is involved is to vacuum up some of the assets that the lawyers would ordinarily hog for themselves. If creditors get anything at all, it will only be to throw them a bone. Its a three-element problem: BD, the lawyers, Bensimon.



Agreed.  My thoughts exactly.  All three are looking out for their own interests.  Screw the customers.  The money "donated" by the customers will go a long way in funding their lavish lifestyles.
0
robertmbeard

Member
Registered:
Posts: 83
Reply with quote  #19 
I agree with GWest's points about the software patent not being worth much, especially if ever challenged.  Another thing to remember is that patent protection typically extends only for 17 years from date of issue or 20 years from the date of earliest filing, whichever is longer.  If I remember correctly, Bullion Direct initially filed for the patent in 1999, and it was issued in 2000.  That means patent protection (assuming it could hold up to scrutiny and a serious challenge...) only extends to sometime in 2019.  While the software seems to usually work well and could be licensed/sold for a modest fee (less than $10,000, in my opinion...), nobody in their right mind would spend millions of dollars for patent protection that only lasts for the next 4 years.  Even if it could have been sold for millions of dollars in 1999, it certainly cannot 16 years later.  Plus, patent protection only gives the holder a stronger position from which to offensively litigate against someone they contend has copied their novel (which this software is not, in my opinion...) design or idea.  That means you have to be willing and able to spend serious bank on lawyers to go try to enforce your patent rights. 
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.