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

Paul...does the broker's note give any update on price tagets, etc?

One thing to remind ourselves of is the rapid reduction in risk when a greenfield company with a new product and no sales starts to be able to quantify its market as a prelude to projecting likely sales. KBC's note does just that more convincingly, I believe, than EVO has done.

SEO's strategy of developing IP which it then brings to market via JV and similar partnerships has just demonstrated the viability of its business model to a high degree.

Great post Paul.

sd

PP Hi,

Download the PDF here ....

Stanelco 6 Sep 05.pdf


Bear in mind the analysts 'conservative' figures .....

2005 profit down from 3.8m to 1.59m
2006 profit up from 18.59m to 36.63m
2007 profit up from 36.20m to 57.97m

Very significant forecast improvement, S.P not going to be <25p for long

Cheers,
PM

SD Hi,

Agreed, and thanks :)

Cheers,
PM

thanks

What a stunning brokers note. The potential for Starpol is absolutely immense.
If Biotec are going to have any chance of producing these sorts of quantities, they are surely going to have to build a new production facility in North America?

By the way ( and at risk of boring people! ) I must just correct some basic misunderstandings re the CC appeal. SEO have lodged two separate appeals. One regarding the original judgement, and the other agianst the prior art judgement.

The prior art refers to a 1963 patent concerning the encapsulation of pesticides in PVA using RF welding ( nothing to do with fertilizer!! ) and the other is a reference in a book by C A Finch published in 1973 ( not the 1950's !!! ) which refers ( on page 42 ) to HF dialectric welding of PVA, for purposes such as unit packages for washing powder.

Nothwithstanding the fact that Judge Floyd found this new evidence to be non-determinative, that finding is nevertheless being appealed, and I believe will be overturned.

If it is in fact overturned, the ramification for the original judgement is profound. For example, the breach of confidence ruling will have to be reversed, because you can't breach a confidence when the information which is aledged to be confidential is already in the public domain. No breach of confidence = no damages.

The reality is that neither party has "won". Both parties need the patents retained by the other to push ahead quickly. BPRG did of course have a good go at trying to win patent Families 2 and 3 when Barry Muncaster farcically tried to con Judge Floyd into believing that he was the inventor of those patents! He doesn't know one end of a dialectric welder from the other!

Hopefuly some of you may have found the above informative. It certainly puts into perspective the misunderstandings that some BPRG investors have of the CC issue, which, after all, is very very important to them ( eg Swallo! ), but, annoyingly for them, an almost complete irrelevance for us!! ( eg Greenseal and Starpol ).

Dormar Hi,

Excellent post :)

Cheers,
PM

Paul

My pleasure!

Off for a sandwich now.

Dormar

Dormar

WRONG i'm afraid, Stanelco have only been given the rights to appeal the prior art ruling, NOTHING ELSE!

You're also wrong about the prior art, it was in regard of sealing fertiliser bags, it was in a reference book but was not patented.

You are also wrong about the breach of confidence, even if Stanelco win the appeal(which is highly unlikely since Judge Floyd threw the weak prior art evidence out already)the ruling still stands.

Stanelco have not appealed about the breach of confidence ruling as the judge found they had stolen the idea, which part of that don't you understand?

Stanelco are now saying with the prior art evidence that the patents don't belong to anyone? Do you understand????????????????

They can't be claiming prior art AND that they still hold the patent!

By Masterson saying Dormars post was good just shows how little he knows about the court case, the sad little excuse for a man.

The abuse from the bashers has been reported, and acknowledged ....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,

Could you have a look at the abuse on the Stanelco BB, some of it is quite .... sick ?

------------------------------------------------------------------


This has been pointed out to me and I am monitoring the situation,

Ian

Customer Support Manager

MoneyAM Ltd

Telephone: 0870 770 8300

Fax: 0870 770 9300

ian@moneyam.com

guys, move on. this is dull. shamona, grow some balls and start behaving like a man. what you think is as irrelevant as what everyone else thinks. people make up their own minds!! the best example is demonstrated by the wonderful , rising countermelody sung by seo's sp, against the dour descending apeggios of bprg's sp. the people have spoken!

Yes I am monitoring this thread as I am with all threads.

Can we keep to the subject now please

Ian

Shamona

Carefull, bloodpressure!

I don't know where you get your info from but it's profoundly wrong. The reference to pesticides is in a 1963 patent GB 317. You were betting on me not knowing that weren't you!!

As for who is appealing what, take a look at this! The you will see that Stanelco are appealing the order from the 2/11/2004: the original decision. Check it out with the link I've provided. You will also notice that BPRG are also appealing the original judgement - which you must not have been aware of either!!

A3/2005/0819 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Defendant from order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dated 2 November 2004, filed 15 April 2005.

A3/2005/0823 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Claimant from order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dated 2 November 2004, filed 15 April 2005.

A3/2005/0824 Stanelco RF Technologies Ltd v Bioprogress Technology Ltd. Appeal of Claimant from order of Mr Christopher Floyd QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), dated 9 December 2004, filed 15 April 2005.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivilterm.htm

The one thing you are correct on, is that if the prior art is admitted, it will also kill Patent Family 1, leaving it open for the world and his dog to utilize the concept contained therein. The point is, anyone who wanted to exploit the concept, would have to do it in such a way that they didn't breach Patent families 2 and 3, which will be retained by Stanelco of course. This would be possible, but would take much time and money, during which, Stanelco would steel a march!. This IS Stanelco's strategy!!

You really must get a grasp of the facts before you come on here making a fool of yourself.

Apologies for boring others with this, but I can't let Shamona get away with posting such unmitigated rubbish without challenge!

bosley

Its not a match between Stanelco and Bioprogress, it's a debate on the upcoming court case; dormar was wrong in his reading of the case so I corrected him!

Some of you need to step back and not treat every negative as "bashing or "abuse", this company is clearly overvalued and "WILL" be hammered by the court case; best to be aware of the real situation before the proverbial hits the fan wouldn't you say?

Perhaps you'd much prefer the rose tinted specs version to the truth though, for me it's only about making money which is why i'm short here till February.

Dormar

Go back and read it again, you are clearly mistaken.

STANELCO HAVE ONLY BEEN GIVEN LEAVE TO APPEAL THE PRIOR ART VERDICT, NOTHING ELSE.

Bioprogress have been given permission to appeal the parts of patent family 1 that they didn't get excusively in the original trial, they don't require this anyway but they don't think Stanelco should be allowed any access to the stolen goods so appealed it.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him.....!!

Shamona

Go back and read my post. The Court Service lists 3 appeals. Both Stanelco and Bioprogress are appealing the original order dated 2/11/04. ( ref.the first two I listed in my post above)

The third appeal is against the order of the 9/12/04 - THIS IS the prior art appeal.

See? - 2 appeals, one against the original decision, the other against the prior art order. How many ways do I have to state this before it finally sinks in?

I'm afraid you're out of your depth on this thread!