Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 7:28 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Star Scientific, Inc. (CIGX) Message Board

  • aapples1992@sbcglobal.net aapples1992 Mar 23, 2011 12:46 AM Flag

    I'm no laywer or anything but read!

    This is almost a case too good to be true!!

    Look at who CIGX has behind them in this court case look who they have as there respreaentivies do your research!! And you will know who has a advantage..just please research as I have taking days to look about every article I could this is the real deal let me know what u think when u do tour research!! Thanks

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You are ignoring the fact that the jury has made their judgment. Sure, maybe it doesn't make sense...but that's what happens when you have plumbers and housewives deciding these cases. Why do you think 90% of patent cases settle? You don't get to revisit these facts on appeal for their correctness.

      Whether you think that the PTO had 60% or 30% of the issues, the point is they don't decide infringement, and the validity determination only relates to a subset of the issues. I make that point not to come up with some statistical theory, but to demonstrate the lunacy of the folks constantly making sstements about how the CAFC is now forced to give Star a new trial, the two proceedings are entirely independent.

      Hail Mary passes are cometimes completed, just ask Doug Flutie. I am just telling you the odds are stacked against Star. The purported experts that sprout up on these boards are typically far from what they represent, you don't know me, so you can lump me in that pile as well. I don't care how people trade this thing, I am just providing some objective comments in view of silly statements about billion dollar judgements and 100+ PPS figures.

    • THANK YOU longcigx! FASCINATING! This may be a matter for an attorney (ironically). It appears I am being singled out by Yahoo in some manner to prevent my ideas/opinions from being published here. If only I had time!

      I may just pass this by the ACLU (oh for the time!). I presume it is unconstitutional for Yahoo to publish freely others' ideas and opinions but to reject mine.

      THANK YOU.

    • the kneegrews lied lets fungudare up hung t are wi dhdicdiy

    • If Star were asserting that Data Treasury patents perhaps that point would be relevant....but they aren't and it isn't.

      Just because one guy hits the lottery does not make every ticket a winner.

    • No, they won't let me post any of it. Just good, reasoned discussion of facts, no bad words (yet they let me post how much I HATE THEIR A$$ES). I am at a loss for words to describe how much of my time yahoo has wasted this way, and the depth of my hate for them. I mostly appreciate what you say and just want to comment on a few specifics and what I believe is your imperfect understanding of the whole history of this case and its bearing on the CAFC. You needent comment on that capsule ... it is meaningless.

      Bottom line ... this is not amenable to "judicial (statistical) actuarial analysis" if you will. It's just too gritty and way out there for that. I think 50/50 overall, with indefiniteness of "controlled environment" weakest on validity (the non-uspto parts of validity are no where near the import you give them) due to the court's, and everyone else's, misperception that it is the whole curing barn ... it is not.

      The jury was obviously prejudiced by the judge's words, actions, and attitudes, and his allowing RJR to reintroduce intent to deceive USPTO. They just wanted out of there. They did not take Star's case seriously. In a nutshell ... sort of. I hate yahoo! I HATE YAHOO!

      I will post my full reply in the private group if anyone cares.

    • I tried to post a long reply to your post, but as often Yahoo's (1000 curse words) filters reject it. I may try to post it in pieces ... with apologies, especially if only part posts.

      HAVE I TOLD ANYONE LATELY HOW VERY VERY MUCH I HATE YAHOO???? BUY THEIR SORRY A$$ES OUT, GOOGLE, AND MAKE IT WORK!!!

    • when your wife looks in the mirror and says, "why the F did i marry him?"

    • naive fantasy? ask Data Treasury what patents are worth...

      www.datatreasury.com


      all Claudio did was patent his idea...now he is worth multi millions of dollars because he beat the big banks to the punch.

      star beat big tobacco to the dance....guess what ? JW Wins!

    • "As far as your drivel, RJR filed "ex-parte" (which means alone, not an owner to the patent) and could have withdrawn the PTO application to invalidate Stars's Patents."

      --WRONG...any patent attorney practicing longer than 5 minutes knows this, not at all a controversial statement. Do a Google search on "stopping an ex parte patent reexamination" and let me know what you find....drivel is you coming on this board with this phony Yale nonsense. You are an attorney like I am Brad Pitt.

      "Because they did not, and PTO ruled favorably in Stars favor, ruling there was no "previous art" which was the lynchpin of RJRs argument and pleadings against Star."

      --The PTO ruled on a subset of the prior art that was considered at trial, not all of it. This is because patent reexamination cannot consider all of the same evidence as a court (prior use, indefiniteness, etc). Again Google it, this isn't a secret. All of this evidence was used against Star, and Star lost. Star also lost on infringement, so, no, the "lynchpin" of the case was not before the USPTO, the PTO does not analyze infringement issues either.

      "This allowed Carter Phillips, Star's attorney, to write the appellate judges and ask them to take judicial notice that the entire RJR argumnent has turned out to be not true, and therfore implying the jury verdict should be vacated,or overturned, which it most certainly will if these judges are paying attention (read 90% chance)."

      --Judicial Notice is required because the reexamiantins were not part of the appeal record, since they appeal relates to whether or not the judge abused his discretion by allowing certain evidence. Any first year law student knows that an appeal is not a retrial of a jury verdict, your implication that the mere existence of a favorable reexam result will somehow result in a 90% win outcome is laugh out loud stupid. This appeal was a long shot from day 1. A reexam result tht reaches roughly 30% of the issues that Star failed on is largely irrelevant.

      Also, you clearly are not a lawyer, and your deliberate use of buzzwords and pretentious langage is not fooling anyone.

      If you want toinvest in Star because of non-legal news, fine, I am not here to bash this stock. On the other hand, hyping up potential billion dollar judgments for patent infringment is nothing more than naive fantasy.

    • I continue to be long and strong CIGX for a multitude of reasons...but this guy who calls himself "ricstro33" is no lawyer.

    • View More Messages
 
STSI
0.58010.0000(0.00%)Jun 3 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.