> "The owners of an "undivided property" own a title not a claim.
Claude, you may be correct. The courts will have to decide. However, regardless of whether GoldGrams represent a title or merely a claim, the patent suit against e-gold contradicts the patent itself. The patent claims that GoldMoney is not a deposit currency. If e-gold has never made the claim that the account holder is the physical owner of the gold in the vault, but rather the trust is the owner of the gold in the vault and an e-gold account is a liability of the trust, THEN e-gold IS a deposit currency. Turk patent an invention that he acknowledges in the patent IS NOT A DEPOSIT CURRENCY and at the same time honestly claim that DEPOSIT CURRENCY infringes on his patent. If you read the patent carefully it is the claim of direct ownership of the gold and the corresponding "extinguishing of transaction risk" that sets the invention apart from what came before and allowed Turk to obtain the patent. If e-gold does not make this claim, then e-gold is not in violation of the patent. In fact, e-gold might be wise to apply for a patent for commodity-based digital deposit currency, since that is what they are and were the first to do. GoldMoney is engaging in "patent creep" with their lawsuit(s). They obtained a patent on a process that really hinges on the governance - the account holder is the actual owner of the gold. They are now trying to use this patent to stop other people from buying and selling gold bullion using accounts over the Internet, even though that is not what they patented. --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
