Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Trooper Technologies Inc. (TPP.V) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom McIlwain who wrote (1217)	5/17/1998 11:36:00 PM
From: Clement	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2090

Tom: > "The real key to this whole thing.is the Patent Examiner and Patent > Attorney have given us a letter stating that it is a brand new > patent.over and above our existing patents in our license > agreements." > If what you believe is correct, it seems strange to me that the > Patent Examiner would go to the trouble of providing TTRIF with such > a letter, given that the letter is meaningless Problem numero uno: do I believe verbatim what Rene says? I was very much a prospective investor of TTRIF. One thing that I have learned is to scrutinize every word that anybody from TTRIF says and take everything with a grain of salt. If not direct lies, they are often not entirely the truth. Take for instance, the case with reg S financing. The question was asked by many on this and other threads whether or not there would be another reg S financing. The answer was a definitive NO from Rene. So what did we get instead? A Reg D financing. Incidentally, convertible debentures are still considered "debt". So will they try it again? That remains to be seen -- I would note that the ramp up in stock promotion is probably not for nothing. Anyway -- for any patent to be issued -- it must not infringe on any other patent. It would probably therefore be standard procedure for the Patent Office to state that there are no other existing patents that would infringe on that patent in granting the patent to begin with. Now the question is -- did Rene specifically state that Patent Examiner and Patent Attorney specifically referred to the existing patents and the license agreements? The answer is no. That would explain "over and above" not only their existing patents, in our license agreements but all patents in general. That does not mean that the patents are not related -- nor does it mean that they are not improvements on the existing technology and included as part of the agreement s7.03: > The Company shall, upon execution of this Agreement, fully disclose > the Process including the engineering specifications and fully > disclose any Improvements, when made or developed from time to time > hereafter, to the Licensee. For the purposes of this paragraph, > "Improvements" means any and all improvements, enhancements, changes > and modifications discovered or made by the Company to the Process, > patents, know-how and related materials and documentation and only > as these Improvements relate to the patents referred to in Recital A > herein and only in regard to the applications of the Process or > Equipment specifically licensed to the Licensee pursuant to this > Agreement. and in section 1.01(i) it states: > "Trade Marks" includes Thermo Master, Thermo-Pro and all other > insignia, labels, slogans and other identification schemes, trade > marks, service marks, trade names and applications therefore that > may be owned now or hereafter or used from time to time by the > Company in association with the Process of the Equipment; Of which that final term, TPP is entitled to. And even TTRIF's IR have stated as much in their stock promo material. It is that material that has been presumably patented -- but it is covered in the license agreement -- regardless of whether or not it is patented and it is merely an extension of the prior patents, and yet the patents are distinct, (Almost sounds like an argument for confederation) because it involves the operational usage surrounding the prior patents. This isn't something that requires a patent lawyer to see. The old patents are for the core thermophillic technology -- the biological side of things. The new ones referred to as Mark II are for the increased operational efficiency using the core technology -- which is covered as being the "Process of the Equipment" in the license. > We have an engineer, plus we Dr. Dan Cumming, plus we have the > Patent Examiner and Attorney letter stating what they've got and > what we have and that the Dick Engineering drawings belong to the > new patents. Even in this commentary -- to be charitable, it may have been a slip up on the part of Rene, but Rene states that both the Examiner and Attorney state that Trooper has what we have. I can state for a fact that they would have stated no such thing. They would merely have commented on the integrity of the patents that TTRIF had applied for -- how could they possibly know what TPP got -- and why would they comment on a license agreement that they do not have jurisdiction over? It may be splitting hairs -- but they have been known to do so in the past. I would also note that the supporting comment from the "impartial" engineer at Dick, comes from someone who is currently the project manager at Richmond -- and this happened shortly after he signed the letter. If you read the letter in the light that Dick Engineering has not worked on this project in several years, you get a feel for the deliberate manipulation that TTRIF has attempted to perpetrate. Given the prior rulings, I doubt the courts will be fooled. Call me a cynic on the actions/reactions of TTRIF, but I think they've earned it -- and evidently you must think something along those lines if you're not a shareholder in either company. > But hey, what do I know? And who is to say that I know more than what is publicly available (and I don't) -- however what I do know is that if the companies stand on the past record of their performance, and the integrity of their management, Trooper wins hands down. I also know that there are enough legal holes in TTRIF's defense that can sink their ship -- and I have confidence that TPP has the legal counsel and financial backing to sink that ship. Clement

To: Tom McIlwain who wrote (1217)	5/18/1998 11:53:00 AM
From: m jensen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2090

Tom, 7.03 and the issue of new patents. And only as these Improvements {relate} to the patents referred to in Recital A Now by definition: And only as these Improvements {show or establish logical or causal connection } to the patents referred to in Recital A. Causal: Simply put is expressing or indicating cause or arising from a cause. And since "Causal" simply means something arising from a "Cause" it brings us to the main point and that is that a" CAUSE " applies to any event, circumstance, or condition or any combination of these that brings about a result. Of which the License Agreement provides for. Best of Luck to all Mike