Actually, JP, this seems like a small point of semantics to you. The reason it is very significant is that the GoldMoney patents are dependent upon the idea that they eliminate payment risk by making the holder the actual owner of the gold in the vault. If my thesis were to be proved right in court then the GoldMoney patents would be invalidated on the basis that the invention cannot do what it claims to do in the patent. If my thesis is wrong, then the GoldMoney patents would only apply to a currency with teh same governance setup as GoldMoney. Since e-gold and e-bullion have their gold owned by a trust, they are by definition "deposit currencies". The GoldMoney patent claims that it is NOT a deposit currency, but rather a new invention, called a Digital Gold Currency that is different from and superior to deposit currencies. Therefore digital gold deposit currencies do not fall under the definition of the invention patented by GoldMoney. Either way, e-gold, e-bullion, Standard Reserve, and Pecunix are off the hook with regard to patent infringement due to this fact. As I have said, I could be wrong. (And I have no plans to test my thesis.) Ken --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you know that e-gold Ltd. stores more gold on behalf of customers than many countries? See http://www.gold.org/Gra/Gra1.htm and the e-gold Examiner at http://www.e-gold.com/examiner.html for details.
