Comments on: Mystery blogger offers insight into secretive EEStor

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:37:00 +0000

Looks like EESTOR has a competitor The company’s press release http://www.1-ltl.com/press%20release.htm

pending patent links http://www.1-ltl.com/patent.htm

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:05:00 +0000

lots of new patent info available here

http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-eestor-patent.html?showComment=1216883280000#c789254974466907237

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:20:00 +0000

Perhaps it is time to change your online poll.

What Canadian Clean Tech business would you invest $100,000?

a. ZENN

b. 6N Silicon

c. Railpower

d. Magenn Power

Darklamp

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:54:00 +0000

I’ll see your 30 and raise you 100.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:32:00 +0000

I just answered my own question. Putting EEStor in as assignee does not bring up any published applications, you may be right about his disguising the connection.

But, if you put Weir in as Inventor, and Cedar Park as Inventor City, you come up with four applications, two of which are relatively new, and show some of the direction he is going in. Unlike some of the previous patents/applciations, these seem professional:

20070148065 Method of preparing ceramic powders using chelate precursors

20080031796 Method of preparing ceramic powders using ammonium oxalate

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:13:00 +0000

I dont think the patent would be valid if the proper inventors name were not on it.

On your search, did you turn up the other patents or published applications? Sometimes their search engine doesnt work well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:39:00 +0000

What would happen to all of this if someone comes up with a simpler, far less expensive process for developing electrodes which have 30 times more storage than EEStors ESU?

Stay tuned for info to be announced in 3-6 months!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:39:00 +0000

Why? Because EEStor is Highly speculative, with a capital H. This doesn’t mean I’m not interested or don’t support what it’s doing. I’m hopeful, and follow it closely. Investing in ZENN, as a publicly traded proxy for EEStor, would seem to me even worse. I’m a big fan of ZENN, but its stock value doesn’t reflect its real business — it only reflects the potential for EEStor. If you took away EEStor ZENN would be a penny stock. No disrespect to ZENN. It’s just fact. Some people have an appetite for risk, some don’t. I don’t buy lottery tickets or gamble in Vegas, either. Those who invest in the company will either get rich, or they will lose their shirts. It’s a coin toss at this point, given the lack of information and the secrecy around EEStor.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:29:00 +0000

Sorry Tyler, I am at a loss as to why, if you had money, you would not invest in ZENN? Would you explain why? I thought you were both supportive and hopeful of ZENN and its relationship with EEstor?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:33:00 +0000

It makes sense to not have the new patents filed in EEstor’s name or Weir’s name at this point. They can have an attorney or somebody with power of attorney who will not raise any flags in a patent search apply for the patents and then after they are granted, they may be assigned to EESTOR and WEIR. Such arrangement would be set out in a contract prior to the patent application.

If those 22 new patents hold the keys to the kingdom, it would be better to keep it stealth.

Read this:

“Joint Ownership

Patents may be owned jointly by two or more persons as in the case of a patent granted to joint inventors, or in the case of the assignment of a part interest in a patent. Any joint owner of a patent, no matter how small the part interest, may make, use, offer for sale and sell and import the invention for his or her own profit provided they do not infringe another’s patent rights, without regard to the other owners, and may sell the interest or any part of it, or grant licenses to others, without regard to the other joint owner, unless the joint owners have made a contract governing their relation to each other. It is accordingly dangerous to assign a part interest without a definite agreement between the parties as to the extent of their respective rights and their obligations to each other if the above result is to be avoided.

The owner of a patent may grant licenses to others. Since the patentee has the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling or importing the invention, no one else may do any of these things without his/her permission. A patent license agreement is in essence nothing more than a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee. No particular form of license is required; a license is a contract and may include whatever provisions the parties agree upon, including the payment of royalties, etc.

The drawing up of a license agreement (as well as assignments) is within the field of an attorney at law. Such attorney should be familiar with patent matters as well. A few States have prescribed certain formalities to be observed in connection with the sale of patent rights.”

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#joint