for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

The way I read it-
There will now be a further(hearing) to determine the mechanism of(transfer) of
(ownership) of the main patent to BioProgress,(together) with all other (patents) and
(patent applications)worldwide which are(derived)from the original main patent
filing. In addition, the Court will be asked to assess the damages to be
awarded to BioProgress for Stanelco's misuse of BioProgress' confidential
information.

You read it correct, can't wait for the hearing...

with the damages completely unknown arent you surprised that the price is drifting upwards?I find it impossible to assess how much of a future SEO have until i know if they own the rights to any of the products that support their share price! or have i got it wrong?

willfagg ,i dont claim to be an expert in share dealings but i have seen what i think this is many times . it looks to me like people are buying on rumour( or speculation) and then will sell when there is any news. i AM surprised though that neither side has come out with a definative statement . or do they not fully understand the ruling?

shares mag this week.even mr . freeborn doesnt know. he says bprg SEEM to have won but we have to wait for the full text.seo is still great value thanks to its NEW lid sealing process. looks safe to me.

The full report is out 67 pages of it, maybe we need a lawyer to fully understand it! Still both companies in the blue now, may not be the case once the full compensation package has been agreed?

i agree adie . it really need putting to bed once and for all , then both companies can get on with things.

It upsets me to think I may be missing out and I like SEO a lot, but without a clue as to the cost and effect of damagesI have to stay out. (it would appear by the lack of comment SEO are in the same boat or they would have reassured investors by now?)- still watching though

Thanks for that link AdieH

I found it in that list.

Here is a link to the actual message itself.

Click here

I sold out months ago but I'm still watching, I may buy again next year or later when we can get a clearer view.

Hope you could understand, it did go on abit... I like you may get in SEO once more details/compensation are known, too risky at present, abit worryiing when Shares mag can't even digest the information (what chance do us mere mortals have).

From another site-

Well that was that for the week and as I have said several times SEO has lost the case. English law protects property above all. If you try to take property by obtaining a patent for an idea that belongs to another company which brought the idea to you, the message has been clear will be clear and will always be.... you will not get away with it!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is several case law that indicates that is the case and would always be the case in England. This is one key principle of English Law, that makes the English Legal System the best in the world.

After the fall of the roman empire much of its law remained as a legacy to modern societies. This is how the roman germanic family legal system came into existance. It was Napoleon who order the compliation of roman law and this compilation became the Napoleons Code. This code based on roman law was and is the basis of the modern civil codes within that family. Some countries that belong to that family are France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, All latin america, Canada (french), New orleans in the USA, etc. This family characterises itself from having rigid regulations which allow companies like SEO to take advantage from a legal loophole or rule and patent an idea that belongs to somebody else. In England this kind of abuses did take place before the birth of equity. The courts which at one point applied roman law lead people to complain to the KING, this is the oringin of equity courts. Equity courts could not revoke the law courts decisions but the solution found at the time was to put in prison the beneficiary of an unequitable decision. Back then prisons were not what they are today....for example a crusader would go on to fight and transfer his rights in property to a friend to administrate his land and cattle when the crusader returned his friend would not give the property back claiming that he (the crusader) transfered the property to him and he was the legal owner, the law courts would decide that this was right under rigid roman law rules but then the equity courts would decide against it warning the friend that if he did not retun the property and all the proceeds to the crusader he would go to jail (dungeon). To terminate this dual decision system the equity courts and the law corts became one but equity rules have supremacy over anyother.

Law in Englad is therefore far more advanced and complex than in the Roman Germanic family because judges are not there to just apply rules but also to apply equity.

Therefore for all those who have complained about how expensive, complicated law is in England think twice. Law should not be just a bunch of rules, courts should not only be there to apply rules, law and courts should and are there to do justice. I ask you, how would it be equitable to allow a company like SEO to take the idea of a company like BPRG which approached SEO with a business opportunity. This is the bottomline you cant take the ideas I bring to you and then go to the patent office claiming they belong to you.

Protecting property in an equitable way is one of the main reasons many transnational companies choose english courts to settle their disputes and english barristers and arbitrators. This not only brings significant bussines to the City but also help maintain the great reputation of the english legal system.

Now not only equity rules protect companies like BPRG from unlawful and unequitable actions like those of SEO but also Criminal law.

With regard to equity rules I will only mention the following.

"He who comes to equity must come with clean hands" furthermore if both parties have unclean hands the court will only consider those of the applicant [SEO in our case] and need not balance the misconduct of one against that of the other (Sang Lee Investment Co. Ltd v Wing Kwai Investment, 1983). SEO has to prove in court it has clean hands by convincing it that they came up with the idea which is going to be impossible because their activities when approached by BPRG where radically different to those of encapsulation. Furthermore even if BPRG does not have clean hands, this will not be consider by the court since SEO made the stupidity of taking BPRG to court, so SEO is the applicant therefore the burden of proof with regard to clean hands is theirs not BPRGs. (Felton v. Callis [1969]1Q.B.) (Rhone v. Stephens [1994]2 A.C. etc, etc, etc, etc,

On the crimial law side, It seems to me that the fact that SEO witnesses obviously lied from the start about the dates of the documents and the fact that they lied about where the idea originally came from and then went and applied and obtained a patent for BPRGs property would most likely give the Crown Prosecution Sevice a very strong case against SEOs CEO and board as well as other SEO employees. because:
SEO appear to be responsible of fraud against BPRG. They have made a false representation to the Patent Office to gain a material advantage by claiming that the invetion belongs to SEO, which is false since it was after BPRGs approach when they decided to pursue that business opportunity as proven the last few days by BPRGs barrister and as the written evidence unveils. The confidentiality agreement is relevant to the case since conclusions as to the origin of the idea can clearly be made from it. BPRGs barrister has proved already in the patents court with all the written evidence necesary and barristers dexterity that has uncover SEO lies from its witnesses. Furthermore SEOs witness tried to lie in court but failed miserably to the point where they almost asked for forgiveness, I suppose the money they could have been promised by SEO could not compensate for the prison years as they could be responsible of conspiracy to defraud with a maximum of 10 years sentence s 12(3) Criminal Justice Act 1987. In Scott v MPC [1975] AC 819 (HL) Lord Diplock said that a conspiracy to defraud is one which the defendants either intend to cause (or are reckless as to causing) economic loss to another (or injure a proprietary interest) or to induce another to act dishonestly contrary to his public duty............... so SEO witnesses could be in trouble.............. you can also look at Moses [1991] Cim LR 617 (CA) Furthermore Lord Denning in Welham v. DPP [1991] AC 103 HL rejected the contention that economic loss was required, the intent to defraud meant the intent to practise a fraud or to act to someones prejudice. This is one of the several reasons why SEOs CEO could end up behind bars as well as the rest of SEOs board. You dont believe it? well there is more then...Viscount Dilhorne in Scott,A-Gs reference No.1 of 1982) [1983] QB 751 (CA)defined the conspiracy to defraud as an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to deprive a person of something which is his or to which he is or would be or might be entitled and an agreement by two or more by dishonesty to injure some proprietary right, therefore SEO by patenting BPRG ideas specially after BPRGs aproach and in light of all the written and court evidence as to the origin of the idea is not only going to lose the current court case but also SEOs CEO could go to prison if BPRG decides to start criminal proceedings as well...serves them right.

In conclusion fairness is on BPRGs side. English law will protect their property and will send a clear message to everybody else..... if a company comes to you and then you try to steal their ideas you will not get away with it. No court in England will decide differently because that could open the flood gates allowing several companies that have been approached in a similar fashion to patent other companies ideas that would create a total caos in the corporate world and the rule of equity would be seriously questioned. I do not believe any judge would like Intellectual property students to read a case where a company like SEO was able to steal from BPRG that would not be reasonable and fair.
SEO should be quite thankful if BPRGs decides not to follow the criminal law path...

All the best.

PS1. rayintheknow..... I am still waiting for the case law under which you believe SEO has a case as the one submitted by SEOs barrister was not only irrelevant but also made it clear to anybody that knows anything about law that he is desperate.

PS2. SEOS Fridays RNS just made it more clear to me the amount of dishonesty around that company somebody bought one million shares on thursday as everybody else was selling them and sold them on friday after the RNS and the 15% increase. This is cetrtainly an issue for the FSA.


PS3. It is nice to get damages from SEO it will be positive for BPRGs bottomline this year. lovely...


PS4. Wyeth is at Tampa looking at the plant an agreement should not be long now. As for the courts decision it should not take more than 2 weeks perhaps just one specially after the way case went.


All the best

i qoute from my post 116
"p.s. there are some on the iii bprg thread who view seo as the devil incarnate and bprg as the righteous crusaders of good in an evil world. very sad."

it is worth re-reading seo's response.as the chairman says

Commenting on the court's decision, Stanelco Chief Executive Ian Balchin said
'We are obviously pleased to have won outright on our entitlement to two of the
three patents families. We disagree with the court's reasoning in relation to
the remaining issues. However, we believe that we have good prospects of
appealing the court's decision and this is the course we will be following.
Stanelco's business has continued to develop since the action was brought, with
a number of new applications for our RF technology - which do not rely upon
these patents. These include food tray lidding, which now represents a very
significant part of Stanelco's future projected revenues.'


the packaging side of the business is what made me and many others buy into the company . it seems to me to be safe . still a buy in my book. dyor

bosley-I am not one of those!

emailpat i'm with you, need to establish/confirm compensation, just my opinion.

I would be quite happy to invest in both stocks,if this has no over all effect.It seems to be more positive for bprg than seo and when the second hearing takes place to unravel patents etc.I think bprg will come out the clear winner.imho

emailpat , i wasnt saying you were one of the righteous brothers. but your post , copied from iii im guessing , is a good example.i aagree with what you and adie are saying , clarity is needed for both companies before they can move on . i mean , look at bprg , everyone thinks its won , it has massive potential and has some big dealings , but the price doesnt seem to be flying.as long as the packaging side of seo is safe , then great things will eventually happen for them .bprg can have the pill patent.i do not care .

I'm holding both...but bprg seems to be the winner at the moment

bosley-you will always get strong points of view from both sides which is understandable as money is involved,I just accept it.All we can do is glean from comments and news an understanding of where the stock is now and where it's going,thats the risk and the market,no more no less.

emailpat - 07 Oct'04 - 13:10 - 133 of 140

Thanks for that, great info!

I think it is cheap to buy SEO now...take advantage at its low