Bioprogress is a stock I have been in and out of quite a few times since it floated in May but not much mention here on the Investors' Room. Does anyone else follow this stock. I see it is up 1.5p today and a few good buyers seem to have appeared.

What the hell is going on, someone must get reported to the FSA for this total and utter bollo..s. You can't just put these RNS's out without any substance, can anyone who was at the case throw some light on this. We shareholders cannot be treated like this...

AdieH: BPRG have a very strong legal case, indeed they have won the argument. However the defending companies lawyers are using all available legal means to change the outcome. This is a natural process. The Judge has given them time to come back to CC with a fully detailed challenge concerning overseas patents. These things take time but we are in the closing stretch and it will, IMO, all be over before XMAS and the judgement will all be BPRG's favour.

Be patient on this as it does sound confusing, and of course to shareholders hoping for a quick and clinical outcome it is very frustrating, but it will all end soon.

So I suggest you follow the BPRG RNS posting. You can of course complain to the FSA but by the time they get around to investigating it will be all over...or I have got this completely wrong!!

Thanks, I hold on for big profits in the future, I hope, but it seems to be me that SEO are clutching at straws and there shareholders should be asking questions of their board... Thought about investing in SEO once case over with but this has certainly made me very wary...

AdieH

IMO, as a long term investor, you should be concentrating on the fundamentals going forward and not some piss-arse case, the shenanigans of which should be of no concern. At the end of the day it will not impact massively on what happens 2,3,4,5 years hence, which I assume is your ultimate goal. I really can't see what you're getting all hot and bothered about. I thought all the nutters were on ADVFN!!

Chill out and watch your investment grow, if it can and if it does.

Al
;-)

Big Al - I know Bio have played it down but this case potentially has a large effect going forward as it concerns the Swallo technology which Wyeth are interested in. Ingel (the Stanelco JV with Cardinal Health) is directly affected. Wyeth is Cardinal's biggest customer and Ingel is/was in competition with BPRG potentially.

Can anyone give me a reason for the SEO RNS, the purpose of which:

"Stanelco finds it necessary to clarify certain information contained
within one
of BioProgress' press releases in connection with the litigation
between the two
companies.
Stanelco wishes to clarify that the Court has not ordered that
Stanelco has to
pay damages to BioProgress."



i.e., where did BPRG state that BRPG had mentioned the payment of damages? They are yet to be resolved, it is the interim costs and some of them have to be paid within 14 days!

Bones , its a side show that traders will feed on. As Al says , has little relevance on long term prospects.

GBP xxxx settlement for or against is irrelevant for "a FTSE100 Company Of The Future"...... yeah right :-)

We need to have a chat sometime to clear the air Bones , I'm not a deramper I invest on fundamentals but these have no track record or alternitivley I trade on chart signals (these are a neutral at best).

Jumpin , who cares ?

Its a shit or bust company thats future has sod all to do with "the case" as shown by todays share price action.

As you all know .... I aint convinced and until the eps justifies the share price its a dreamers/rampers/derampers/ delight.

GOOD LUCK.

Jumping, the word desperation springs to mind

Morning all,just entered this one ,,is there something about a case ,,joke..

Dil - I disagree. The outcome of the dispute with Stanelco has plenty of impact on the long term prospects. It's not the only prospect but as it impacts on potentially the biggest customer to date, it is relevant and definitely not a sideshow.

I know what you say about traders and short term psychology but that is not of concern to me. The price can do what it likes, I am not concerned. The business being put into place will create the sought after fundamentals. Whether you can pick up the shares at Dave's 1 by then I somehow doubt, but nothing in this world is a certainty.

Note AFX been corrected!


(Correcting this item from yesterday to show BioProgress never claimed that
Stanelco had been ordered to pay damages, but rather at this point only costs)
LONDON (AFX) - Stanelco PLC said the UK Patents Court has not ordered it to
pay damages to BioProgress PLC in a dispute over patent applications.
BioProgress earlier said that the court had made an order for Stanelco to
pay costs to it, and must make an interim payment towards these costs of about
180,000 stg within two weeks.
However, Stanelco said later that the court will not make a final order
until the company's application to admit further evidence, which may result in a
reconsideration of some of the judge's findings, has been determined.
The company added that it believes that no damages, or at worst minimal
damages, will ultimately be found to be payable to Bioprogress.
cml/bam/cw
For more information and to contact AFX: www.afxnews.com and
www.afxpress.com

Bones - think you misunderstand me.

I meant to say, the award of costs or damamges is pretty irrelevant. I know the fact that they effectively keep all the revenue, etc from the technology is a big plus once it gets going.

Sorry for the confusion, but I just get a bit fed up when people who are supposedly long term investors get upset about daily, weekly or even monthly situations. They should be looking at years ahead with an outfit such as BPRG. That's when the "jam" may arrive.

More from the other place

schull69 - 4 Nov'04 - 10:52 - 3120 of 3152

A bit more from the cc on Tuesday.I'm not a lawyer so wont be able to comment on detail but this might add to the current talk about damages.The issue came up in court after 4.30 when the time had overrun and the Judge had asked the usher if he could carry on which was granted.Floyd said that 'the usual order for breach of confidence, should be made either by enquiry or by accounts.'This is when our man Baldwin stepped in making it clear that he requires the enquiry to extend to all 3 patents,that he requires disclosure and not an interptetation of them,'..we want to know sums so that we can make an informed election.'This was ordered to be made within 28 days as I posted and I remind you that Baldwin was insistant on the wording 'sufficient to show.'My impression is that he cant wait to get his hands on the figures and then send SEO down the Swanee, never to be seen again...and BPRG wont be on the bankside with a life raft'Remember also that Baldwin is the top patent lawyer in the country....it's a real pleasure to see this terrier at work....this is real court room drama.

Another point:the Judge said in court that costs take into account'..the conduct of the parties in court.'If their rns is in contempt of court then I think Floyd should be informed of this..he wont take kindly to it.

Afternoon all glad to be aboard,not sure how long,but will play it by ear.

Big Al - I bow to your all-knowing intellect........!

Carry on trading. I will comment in 2008.

20:08 tonight or tomorrow ?

Anyone want too hazard what if any tomorrow's bounce will be?

...........and out!! ;-)

Done OK, back to watching.

It would seem that this was written by Tom Bulford of Red Hot Penny Shares now on ADVFN


graemepirie - 4 Nov'04 - 18:17 - 3409 of 3448

RHPS

"STANELCO (SEO): As promised I am continuing to follow this one,
although it is no longer in the RHPS portfolio. Rival BioProgress's
spin merchants have put out another misleading statement concerning
Stanelco's liability to pay its legal costs. Deputy CEO, Howard White,
gave me details of the costs of this case, and suffice to say that
Stanelco has all the necessary cash, but in any case intends to appeal
against the judgement. WATCH "


Graeme has written to him ! Wonder if he will get a reply

graemepirie - 4 Nov'04 - 18:25 - 3413 of 3448

Tom,

I am a shareholder in Bioprogress.

I take great exception to the paragraph on Stanelco. Please expand on this
for me and explain what is incorrect regarding the Bioprogress RNS.

I would also like to ask why you have not mentioned that SEO have NO rights
to use any part of the patents without permission from BPRG. Also why you
have not mentioned the order made for SEO to declare all relevant info to
Bioprogress so that DAMAGES can be calculated.

You seem to be playing down the fact that SEO have been found guilty of
Breach of Trust and of stealing the original idea from Bioprogress.

I look forward to your reply

Graeme Pirie