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

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!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

wake me up when someone says something interesting , then i can wipe away the sleep, put on my rose-tinted specs and thrust my head in the sand once again......

bosley

At least my posts have something relevant to say. None of your recent posts have.

And please try not to clog up this thread by replying.

Dormar

You were doing well until that last post Dormar. Let yourself down. Your posts with content were an interesting read and very much appreciated so if you have more of them please post but playground banter like post 8996 is best left off the thread

Rasenberg

Point taken. Should have ignored it.

Cheers

Dormar

Dormar,
I will listen to anyones comments on this or any other stock, with an open mind, but it is a bit rich to advise the person who started the thread what they should or shouldn't post on it, and then tell them not to reply.
Alan

Alan,
Yes, it was a bit rich. Apologies to all including Bosley.
Dormar

Bosley wake up .NEWS release on business wire sept 7 10 19 ET,re PETAL PACK.Might not be the most exciting news but its more relevant than most of the postings on here of late.NOW FOR SOME REAL NEWS PET UP ABOUT 200 PERCENT.

Dormar

The original case has been lost by Stanelco, their is no appeal against this; how many times do I need to repeat myself???????????

The only thing Stanelco have been "ALLOWED" to appeal is the prior art verdict as this is termed as new case law, they can't simply say we're appealing without grounds so they didn't.

I am very well read on the case and know every detail, i'll catagoricaly state that if i'm wrong(and I know i'm not)then i'll never post on this site again.

ps The new case law has since been proven in another case since the trial, do you want the link??????????

Guess who won, inventor or the company he went to for help???????????

:--))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Dormar=way up in my estimation. I have endless amounts of time to listen to people who are either funny, or big enough to apologise publically. More of that spirit on this and all other threads please.
Alan

I dont think this has been posted here before - Petal Pack launched in the U.S. today.


http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050907005668&newsLang=en

Shamona

That's the spirit! You've already demonstrated how well read you are on the case, so no need to elaborate further!. Indeed, the casual observer would surely advise against such an enterprise! LoL!

Best Regards

Dormar

Oblomov

Any chance you can post the news wire article on here? I can't seem to cut and paste the link.

Cheers

Dormar

Good posts on the court case Dormar, well done.