Plant Impact Share Discussion Threads

[agextpert] 14/5/2014 15:09

Horace H,

Thank you for constructive insight, it will indeed be important to hear John Brubaker's comments.

I question the sway of a small investor posting discussion here, even of bad news. If the shares go down due to the patent being rejected, then it is because of the news, not the messenger. The news in this case was from the EPO, I just shared it for discussion here, as I felt it relevant and an important discussion topic, relating to the security of investments. I would have expected PIM to announce this rather than it remain internal information, by it not being pointed to (even though it is public, it is difficult to find).

The small interest I retain is just in case it ever goes up, but it doesn't look likely. I have a personal interest in the area of research and product development the company past championed, and won't hide my disappointment in how stagnant it has appeared in recent years, although this is a personal opinion.

The price will rise or fall according to the stewardship of the company and its performance. Any discussion here wont effect it, and even if it does the blame or plaudits are due to the business fundamentals. Obviously in a tech company the value is based on sentiment of assets (IP) and likelihood of generating cash from them (product sales or disposal of IP). Loss of IP, or IP being limited to a set of claims the holder (PIM) claim offers no protection, makes disposal impossible and sales less likely or likely to be subject to competition, all important points for people investing. Whilst it appeared this board have completely imbalanced discussions, oblivious to this as an issue.

This company has for years now consistently claimed it does not need cash, before raising cash which it later turns out prevented it going bust. In the past it has raised based on needing 'growth capital' and it transpired it just needed a bail out, if you leaf through the threads on here, the research notes will be there. Each time it has been at a lower price.

The noises on here now are that 'they don't need cash to stay solvent, but may need it to grow' - deja vu. How can that growth happen if they have no IP and do not own the assets?

The discussion here today has scoffed at the fact they 'only need sales of £4m to break even'. That would be a massive hike, and I for one can't see it happening this year or ever if they cannot hold their IP.

They recently changed brokers, yet again. In the past this has been a precursor to a fund raising. If I were looking at being part of a fund raise I would not invest now until I saw the decision by the EPO in four months.

You are asking people that have opinions that the stock is weak, do not express them out of self interest. Or if not asking this, then assuming this be the default position, and behaviour of all people without an agenda. I would however, say that knowing information hugely damaging, and withholding it for your own gain be more shark-like behaviour, than that of somebody honest.

I have a different outlook, the market is what it is, and investors need to be fully informed, else the risk to small shareholders is much increased. If I were a small investor I would want a good discussion on hot potato issues like this, not for sharks to sell and bail, leaving other people to take a hit.

In any event as said, this EPO announcement is public, (link beneath)for a reason and is what it is regardless of any discussion here.

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

If it be the case that the stock has taken a fall from this news,as well researched investors, I am sure you appreciate understanding the reasoning behind this. Had this not been discussed here, you may well have seen the falling stock with no explanation as to why, or perhaps the stock would have altered before it was noticed publicly as I can only assume it was not the intention of PIM to announce this. Maybe I am being unfair here and they are drafting something as we speak, I don't know, but I am not the villain here.

[agextpert] 14/5/2014 15:08

P1nkfish, absolutely agree the company should RNS these issues, themselves, although I doubt this will happen. It would be difficult to believe that the inability to protect the technology which constitutes 100% of last years product sales, wouldn't have a material impact on price/market/valuation of the company. I guess the companies take would be that they have 4 months to get the original claims, even if this does not offer them the protection they wish. I can't believe that in anyway can be good news.

For those not wanting to trawl, through the last three pages of posts, this discussion is on the very recent rejection (Friday)by the EPO of many of the claims in the patent application, protecting Vertitas/ Inca/ Amestros.

P1nkfish, the date of the letter sent from the EPO, published on the link below is the 9/05/2014 which presumably would mean that PIM would have received this yesterday, after long negotiations over the patent since filing in 2006 (8 years ago). Should plant Impact have received this yesterday or indeed, same day meaning last Friday, the recent increase with the institutional investor will have pre-dated this new bad news, even internally (although people should not be getting information ahead of the public should they).

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

RobardS

I happen to think they have good products, although they have never managed to profit from them as yet. In some markets the Veritas/Inca/Whatever technology has a high value. In soybeans however, with a small 6% increase (6% of what?, depends on yield how much that is worth), which a few pennies difference in Soy price can wipe off the value, the market is large potential volume but small value.

The worth is different in different markets, and is intrinsically linked to if is protected or generic. In price sensitive markets like soy, the price will be hard to get if it goes generic. This will happen with no IP, which is looking likely.

Regards the value of the IP, well PIM themselves claim that the original claims give them no protection. Hence they tried to increase these claims. Both the increased claims, and the 'worthless according to PIM claims' have been rejected last week. Of course this will affect the value to PIM of the technology.

The value in the market can be accessed by anybody if there is no patent that is worthwhile. It is PIM that state the original claims offer no protection, not me. Take it up with them. They claim it will leave 'the essence of the invention unprotected' in the letter (published in the link below) asking for new claims. These claims have been completely rejected. the original claims are also rejected, but PIM have 4 months to submit lesser claims.

Wan as I acknowledged in my last post, I understand PIM have new facilities, and have written lots of PR about them. I hope they use these to produce some new products (it has been 5 years since), although this doesn't seem to be in the pipeline.

[agextpert] 14/5/2014 15:06

I am posting up some of my analysis from the main thread, so it is easy to find and not lost in the morass of infantile objections to critical analysis.

P1nkfish, Thanks for your balance I believe it is what is needed here.

Before being set upon, I was trying to make some interesting points. I understand some may not agree with my opinion, but the analysis they are based on, is irrefutable fact, and referenced. It can be speculated, how having a much reduced patent in the EU may do for PIMs sales prospects, and whilst the opinion of the likely effect is along a sliding scale and personal. My opinion is, it could be highly damaging. I do find it a little suspect that some would portray the inability to meaningfully patent protect the only selling product in this company (veritas/ Inca/ amestros), as a non-problem.

Whilst alleged by wan, that Brubaker believes the patent will be granted as negotiated, the patent office do not share this opinion from their publicly published scathing report, which rejects practically every claim, and asks more questions than that two years ago. I again for all those how have missed this post the link, so you can read it and make up your own minds:

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

(Replace xx in https to tt as obscures when posted)

I fail to see how this can be good news, I would personally be very concerned if I could not protect my only selling technology, in one of the biggest markets in the world, where it is unrealistic to compete on price, if it becomes generic. We have helpfully been highlighted to the fact that the patent in the US was granted, with very similar terms to those PIM are trying to avoid with the EPO, as "the essence of the invention would be unprotected".

I can only assume that their stance that these claims are no longer useful, despite having them granted in the US, is based on their experience in the US market, which was lucrative seeing large sales of the technology displacing other products, but now sales are non-existent. I am only suggesting there seem a logical link, to a patent PIM claim doesn't protect them and sales disappearing. I am happy however, to entertain other reasons as to why the US sales are no more and why the EPO patent as stated by PIM doesn't protect, but the US one does? Maybe the sales are no longer there, because they are not doing well commercially, it would seem difficult to loose such a market hold, with a good performing product that was protected by IP.

This is a reasonably discerning observation, that any person logically using public information can come to the conclusion of. I can only as a logical person try to extrapolate this out to the other markets that may be affected, which leaves me concerned about the likelihood of sales in Europe, and the likelihood of expanded claims be granted anywhere else either, such as Brazil. The rejection of these claims by the patent office I am convinced are catastrophic to market hold of Inca/Amestros/ veritas.

I am just going to ignore some of the more childish and witch hunting type posts, displaying people indignantly jumping up and down insisting that I disclose who I am, and upload a cv presumable from the remarks, whilst claiming they are well known to the CEO... yes I am the one with the agenda, not these people, who reliably informed by, the one person who most definitely has a vested interest, the person being paid a rather excessive salary each year from what is and has been for a very long time a loss making business.

But just to nod at these people, it is likely had I not been met with rude opposition claiming me be a liar, fraud, shorter, de-ramper etc or to shoot or sue me for daring to post public domain fact, I would likely have stopped posting a while ago. I don't have unlimited amounts of time to spend on a crusade, to help the unfortunate investor. Perhaps stop digging you're making it worse!

If you don't think that IP assets have any value in an IP business, and will not reflect in any way on market/ sales and future value, I suggest investment is not the place for you.

[agextpert] 14/5/2014 11:58

P1nkfish, Thanks for your balance I believe it is what is needed here.

Before being set upon, I was trying to make some interesting points. I understand some may not agree with my opinion, but the analysis they are based on, is irrefutable fact, and referenced. It can be speculated, how having a much reduced patent in the EU may do for PIMs sales prospects, and whilst the opinion of the likely effect is along a sliding scale and personal. My opinion is, it could be highly damaging. I do find it a little suspect that some would portray the inability to meaningfully patent protect the only selling product in this company (veritas/ Inca/ amestros), as a non-problem.

Whilst alleged by wan, that Brubaker believes the patent will be granted as negotiated, the patent office do not share this opinion from their publicly published scathing report, which rejects practically every claim, and asks more questions than that two years ago. I again for all those how have missed this post the link, so you can read it and make up your own minds:

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

(Replace xx in https to tt as obscures when posted)

I fail to see how this can be good news, I would personally be very concerned if I could not protect my only selling technology, in one of the biggest markets in the world, where it is unrealistic to compete on price, if it becomes generic. We have helpfully been highlighted to the fact that the patent in the US was granted, with very similar terms to those PIM are trying to avoid with the EPO, as "the essence of the invention would be unprotected".

I can only assume that their stance that these claims are no longer useful, despite having them granted in the US, is based on their experience in the US market, which was lucrative seeing large sales of the technology displacing other products, but now sales are non-existent. I am only suggesting there seem a logical link, to a patent PIM claim doesn't protect them and sales disappearing. I am happy however, to entertain other reasons as to why the US sales are no more and why the EPO patent as stated by PIM doesn't protect, but the US one does? Maybe the sales are no longer there, because they are not doing well commercially, it would seem difficult to loose such a market hold, with a good performing product that was protected by IP.

This is a reasonably discerning observation, that any person logically using public information can come to the conclusion of. I can only as a logical person try to extrapolate this out to the other markets that may be affected, which leaves me concerned about the likelihood of sales in Europe, and the likelihood of expanded claims be granted anywhere else either, such as Brazil. The rejection of these claims by the patent office I am convinced are catastrophic to market hold of Inca/Amestros/ veritas.

I am just going to ignore some of the more childish and witch hunting type posts, displaying people indignantly jumping up and down insisting that I disclose who I am, and upload a cv presumable from the remarks, whilst claiming they are well known to the CEO... yes I am the one with the agenda, not these people, who reliably informed by, the one person who most definitely has a vested interest, the person being paid a rather excessive salary each year from what is and has been for a very long time a loss making business.

But just to nod at these people, it is likely had I not been met with rude opposition claiming me be a liar, fraud, shorter, de-ramper etc or to shoot or sue me for daring to post public domain fact, I would likely have stopped posting a while ago. I don't have unlimited amounts of time to spend on a crusade, to help the unfortunate investor. Perhaps stop digging you're making it worse!

If you don't think that IP assets have any value in an IP business, and will not reflect in any way on market/ sales and future value, I suggest investment is not the place for you.

[coincall] 14/5/2014 10:18

wan,

agree your post 247, I assume the directors are aware of agextpert's attempts to damage the company. I have cut and pasted his post 246 rather than repost it on this bb. I suspect a disgruntled ex-employee.

[wan] 14/5/2014 10:12

Despite being able to respond relatively quickly to other posts and indeed considering how easy it is to arrive at a list of granted patents (especially your own), we still don't have the list of granted patents by Agextpert (not 'expert' and who created the username only two days ago!). Not that I am ultimately expecting to see such a list!

[p1nkfish] 14/5/2014 09:46

Sorry to say, but if the selling continues, this could hit sub 15p.

[p1nkfish] 14/5/2014 09:45

Each has to make their own value judgement.

I certainly wouldn't condemn someone simply on the basis they hold an opposing view to mine.

Just needs some calmness. Reflection. Consideration.

[loobrush] 14/5/2014 08:38

AGEXTPERT-You are a blatant shorter and you should be put against the wall and shot.

Trying to copy Gotham with your thread-"built on sand".Pathetic

Someone tell the company and get him sued.

[wan] 14/5/2014 08:38

I think you have just confirmed your agenda, if true! "I have many granted patents in my name in this field" I think readers would like to see the list of your granted patents.

[agextpert] 14/5/2014 08:31

Wan,

The American patent is an exemplar of the mess they are in, not an example to calm the market

The US patent office took a similar line to the EPO, and drastically cut the claims, as they were not supported by the data submitted. The scope of the granted US patent is similar to the claims that PIM have written to the EPO about stating that "they fail to cover the essence of the invention" and asking to increase the claims.

But don't just listen to PIM, look at the marketplace in the US. Prior to the US patent being granted (with much reduced claims) PIM had significant sales in the US of this technology (INCA). Since the patent was granted (opening the market to competition as it is weak) they have so far as I can tell from their books not sold a single liter of it in the US. This has dented their profits, if they still had those sales they may well have reached breakeven.

So, this only demonstrates why PIM have asked for more claims in the EPO patent (which covers far more markets, and is far more valuable). A weak, cut down patent like the one in the US is worthless so far as restricting competition. The US is full of products in the space PIM no longer have sales in. Take a look at historic accounts published by PIM, you can see how they lost the market there. If you like I will dig them out and post them here to illustrate clearly.

Of course what Brubaker has not said is more interesting (assuming you are not making this up) he has not mentioned that they have no patent yet in Brazil, where they also wish to increase claims. You can be sure the patent office there will be aware of all the new prior art at the EPO. The other granted patents are in minor markets they are not selling in. If Bayer see this news they will look at the patent situation there and take stock. As before mentioned the big 6 work on margins not possible with generics, and will walk from products if competition shaves the price. What the EPO publish, the Brazilian patent office will pick up on. Ditto the US patent office who would also not accept the claims PIM wanted. It leaves the Brazil soya prospects looking very vulnerable, which needs to be priced in to any appraisal of PIMs value and sales prospects.

Back to the catastrophe at the EPO, what you claim Brubaker has told you is simply twaddle. They were told no, asked for more than were they were told no to, and have been told they can't even have the cut down claims they were offered two years ago. Call that a negotiation!

They have four months to respond to the most damning patent report I have ever seen. If you understand the EPO report then you will see that they have not go a cat in hells chance of getting even the claims PIM have publically stated offer no protection. See link below.

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

I have many granted patents in my name in this field, and I can tell you categorically that I have never seen an EPO report this negative. In my career I have seen a lot of patents completely fail with far better reports from the EPO than this. Any industry specialist will look at that EPO report and declare the chances of getting anything but a very diluted set of claims as dead in the water.

If I get chance later I will write a summary in layman's terms of the patent report, maybe then investors can see better just how dire it is.

In any case if I were looking to participate in a fund raise, I would ask a professional patent advisor, not Mr Brubaker, who has no science background suitable to actually understand the EPO missive, and has a massive vested interest in playing down this bad news. He is after all paid nearly a quarter of a million pounds a year to keep the shares happy, he is hardly going to admit to the botch they have presided over here.

You ask for impartial evidence, it is all there. Everything I have discussed is verified in the public domain. You on the other hand seem to have an agenda to push any discussion of problems off the BB, where people can't see it. Do you work for PIM?

[loobrush] 14/5/2014 08:27

I don't believe what agexpert is saying is true at all, there may be some tiny thing in what he is saying but any effect on PIM may be nil.
If he was so concerned why didn't he contact management and get a reply by e-mail that we could all see.
He has now set up a thread on ADVFN- Plant impact built on sand-, and he is all over the LSE board saying the same.
This is a poor copycat attempt of the shorting attack on Quindell by Gotham.

This stinks to me, who is agexpert, is it the first time he has posted on this site, how did he get this obscure piece of info.

Trying to make out he was a shareholder and just wanted to bring all up to speed with events etc
Shoot him.

[wan] 14/5/2014 07:59

Agextpert...You seem to think we need to hear your theory over and over again, including supplying the link, we got your message! Repeating it over and over at every opportunity serves to suggest you have an agenda of more than just informing this board. Unless you can demonstrate some impartiality and better still, confirm why we should accept your comments as being from an "informed" source, then I will read them with good deal scepticism. Most readers are familiar with some of the shenanigans that has taken place on BB's, which could even be from the likes of competitors and even ex-employees who might want to attempt to slow a company's success.

Just to confirm that the patent in question has been granted in the US (and in multiple other jurisdictions) -

Agricultural Composition
June 15, 2006

Agricultural compositions which comprises (i) a water-soluble salt of calcium and (ii) an auxin mimic that is an aryl substituted urea, for administering calcium to plants. The compositions particularly include diphenylurea as the auxin mimic. Also formulations containing the compositions and methods of their uses are included.

Patent History
Patent number: 7740680
Type: Grant
Filed: Jun 15, 2006
Issued: Jun 22, 2010
Patent Application Number: 20080307845
Assignee: Plant Impact PLC
Inventor: David Marks (Witherslack)
Primary Examiner: Wayne Langel
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP
Application Serial: 11/917,268

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 18:11

Horace H,

Thank you for constructive insight, it will indeed be important to hear John Brubaker's comments.

I question the sway of a small investor posting discussion here, even of bad news. If the shares go down due to the patent being rejected, then it is because of the news, not the messenger. The news in this case was from the EPO, I just shared it for discussion here, as I felt it relevant and an important discussion topic, relating to the security of investments. I would have expected PIM to announce this rather than it remain internal information, by it not being pointed to (even though it is public, it is difficult to find).

The small interest I retain is just in case it ever goes up, but it doesn't look likely. I have a personal interest in the area of research and product development the company past championed, and won't hide my disappointment in how stagnant it has appeared in recent years, although this is a personal opinion.

The price will rise or fall according to the stewardship of the company and its performance. Any discussion here wont effect it, and even if it does the blame or plaudits are due to the business fundamentals. Obviously in a tech company the value is based on sentiment of assets (IP) and likelihood of generating cash from them (product sales or disposal of IP). Loss of IP, or IP being limited to a set of claims the holder (PIM) claim offers no protection, makes disposal impossible and sales less likely or likely to be subject to competition, all important points for people investing. Whilst it appeared this board have completely imbalanced discussions, oblivious to this as an issue.

This company has for years now consistently claimed it does not need cash, before raising cash which it later turns out prevented it going bust. In the past it has raised based on needing 'growth capital' and it transpired it just needed a bail out, if you leaf through the threads on here, the research notes will be there. Each time it has been at a lower price.

The noises on here now are that 'they don't need cash to stay solvent, but may need it to grow' - deja vu. How can that growth happen if they have no IP and do not own the assets?

The discussion here today has scoffed at the fact they 'only need sales of £4m to break even'. That would be a massive hike, and I for one can't see it happening this year or ever if they cannot hold their IP.

They recently changed brokers, yet again. In the past this has been a precursor to a fund raising. If I were looking at being part of a fund raise I would not invest now until I saw the decision by the EPO in four months.

You are asking people that have opinions that the stock is weak, do not express them out of self interest. Or if not asking this, then assuming this be the default position, and behaviour of all people without an agenda. I would however, say that knowing information hugely damaging, and withholding it for your own gain be more shark-like behaviour, than that of somebody honest.

I have a different outlook, the market is what it is, and investors need to be fully informed, else the risk to small shareholders is much increased. If I were a small investor I would want a good discussion on hot potato issues like this, not for sharks to sell and bail, leaving other people to take a hit.

In any event as said, this EPO announcement is public, (link beneath)for a reason and is what it is regardless of any discussion here.

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

If it be the case that the stock has taken a fall from this news,as well researched investors, I am sure you appreciate understanding the reasoning behind this. Had this not been discussed here, you may well have seen the falling stock with no explanation as to why, or perhaps the stock would have altered before it was noticed publicly as I can only assume it was not the intention of PIM to announce this. Maybe I am being unfair here and they are drafting something as we speak, I don't know, but I am not the villain here.

[jammytass] 13/5/2014 17:29

perhaps he should put out a rns to clear the air and remind the markets how safe the patents are or have we been found out??? as posted on lse>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It seems that the EPO has completely rejected all the new claims PIM tried to add to their patent a couple of years back. PIM at the time claimed the original patent claims 'failed to protect the essence of the invention'. Worse still for PIM the EPO have also reiterated that they will reject the original claims as well leaving no patent protection at all, even the claims PIM state were inadequate.

They now have four months to submit weaker claims, and hope they are passed. Reading the reports from the EPO it doesn't look good for their chances. I guess this could affect sales, likelihood of attracting partners, retention of partners, and ultimately share value

[wan] 13/5/2014 17:18

I have had a response that that puts this into perspective, but 'at this stage' I am not going to quote the CEO word for word (which I don't usually do anyway). But suffice to say that, and as I alluded to earlier today, the patent applicant makes claims, and the EPO challenges/refines them, etc. This is all that is happening, and PI's view is that their long standing application will be granted has not changed. Readers might like to know that the patent in question has been long approved in multiple other jurisdictions, including the United States.

[horace_h] 13/5/2014 16:32

Thank you Wan - John Brubaker's response will be important and interesting. I'm intending to ask similar questions.

The comments presented in so articulate a manner by Agextpert obviously raise a concern a concern and the discussion here is balanced. I do wonder, however, why he/she has posted so comprehensively and often after "years of observing without posting". If I saw news on any of my investments, I would sell my holding and then post the reasoning for others to make up their own minds and act as they feel compelled. That would then end my interest in the share.

Thus, if you (Agextpert) are still holding shares in PIM, your comments are not going to enhance the value of them - indeed the bid and ask have dropped from today's sells. Those sales may or may not be down to this news and/or your comments but it probably explains why your motivation is being questioned. It is not infantile to suspect rampers and de-rampers - all too often trading and investing take place in a pitiless, shark-infested environment.

[wan] 13/5/2014 16:04

Coincall...Yes I did make contact earlier today with the CEO, but I have not had a reply back yet. To be fair it might be difficult to comment on, but as I said, I expect a robust response to the EPO requests. Unlike Agextpert, I don't see this as a one-way street though.

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 15:45

Coincall

They are not my posts, it is the Patent Office that has published this, and PIM themselves. I am just discussing the possible effects.

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

[coincall] 13/5/2014 15:37

wan, p1nkfish,

Have you contact with the PIM directors to hear their reply to agextpert posts today?

[p1nkfish] 13/5/2014 15:28

Lets see if we get an RNS in a timely fashion.
If not then this is a non-issue because if it was an issue they would RNS.

[agextpert] 13/5/2014 14:27

P1nkfish, absolutely agree the company should RNS these issues, themselves, although I doubt this will happen. It would be difficult to believe that the inability to protect the technology which constitutes 100% of last years product sales, wouldn't have a material impact on price/market/valuation of the company. I guess the companies take would be that they have 4 months to get the original claims, even if this does not offer them the protection they wish. I can't believe that in anyway can be good news.

For those not wanting to trawl, through the last three pages of posts, this discussion is on the very recent rejection (Friday)by the EPO of many of the claims in the patent application, protecting Vertitas/ Inca/ Amestros.

P1nkfish, the date of the letter sent from the EPO, published on the link below is the 9/05/2014 which presumably would mean that PIM would have received this yesterday, after long negotiations over the patent since filing in 2006 (8 years ago). Should plant Impact have received this yesterday or indeed, same day meaning last Friday, the recent increase with the institutional investor will have pre-dated this new bad news, even internally (although people should not be getting information ahead of the public should they).

hxxps://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP06744220&tab=doclist

RobardS

I happen to think they have good products, although they have never managed to profit from them as yet. In some markets the Veritas/Inca/Whatever technology has a high value. In soybeans however, with a small 6% increase (6% of what?, depends on yield how much that is worth), which a few pennies difference in Soy price can wipe off the value, the market is large potential volume but small value.

The worth is different in different markets, and is intrinsically linked to if is protected or generic. In price sensitive markets like soy, the price will be hard to get if it goes generic. This will happen with no IP, which is looking likely.

Regards the value of the IP, well PIM themselves claim that the original claims give them no protection. Hence they tried to increase these claims. Both the increased claims, and the 'worthless according to PIM claims' have been rejected last week. Of course this will affect the value to PIM of the technology.

The value in the market can be accessed by anybody if there is no patent that is worthwhile. It is PIM that state the original claims offer no protection, not me. Take it up with them. They claim it will leave 'the essence of the invention unprotected' in the letter (published in the link below) asking for new claims. These claims have been completely rejected. the original claims are also rejected, but PIM have 4 months to submit lesser claims.

Wan as I acknowledged in my last post, I understand PIM have new facilities, and have written lots of PR about them. I hope they use these to produce some new products (it has been 5 years since), although this doesn't seem to be in the pipeline.

[p1nkfish] 13/5/2014 11:47

Sorry!

I think there is some tree shaking going on. Looking at the sells the price has help up OK.

I do expect a foot to the pedal.

Volatile - likely. Patents - issues. Finished - most certainly not and this is just starting imho.

[robards] 13/5/2014 11:43

p1nkfish, sorry, my comment was directed at agextpert.
I was expressing some doubt about the consistency of what he/she was saying.
Given the hopelessness of PIM's position, and the worthlessness of its products, according to agextpert, I was wondering why he/she claimed to remain a holder!

I still hold.