NTEK / NTGL

Quote: DRich

I would tend to agree with Teddy. The engineers are usually focused on product, not the investment machine.

I agree that he was a low level pawn (given a high level title) that probably had no clue at first what was going on. Slowly, things probably started to fall into place that he was involved with something he didn't want any part of. He's had some crazy ideas over the years, but that does not make him a criminal.


ZCore13

Quote: Ahigh

And Sammy, your suggestion that there was never a game

Didn't it have like a $100 minimum? I
predicted it would go nowhere, it looks
like I was correct.

Quote: EvenBob

Didn't it have like a $100 minimum? I
predicted it would go nowhere, it looks
like I was correct.

He never had a little yellow ball chance in hell once he had the EvenBob jinx fully focused on him.

Had he been involved with IGT or any other well known company things would have been different. The pinball was the best skill game I have seen so far.

Where can I get the prototype?

Sorry ahigh.
I'm not the one with credibility issues.
I'm also not the one that will be dealing with the courts.
That will be you.

And you know it.
And I'm glad I'm not riding your unicycle. Your 'history' in the game industry means nothing with your history with foley and what's going to go down.
You have a perfect right to defend yourself on forums and I expected it. My credibility has nothing to do with your issues. And I don't know who 'you guys' are.

But, if I were you, I wouldn't try to defend your case publicly on chat boards. It's not going to be helpful with posts like yours being recorded for evidence. Because that's what happens in SEC cases. Everything is researched and recorded. Everything.

I'm not coming at you, going after you at all. Making comments about the obvious you can take any way you want.
I'm sorry that your decisions lost your family and job. I'm sure you can still have visitation rights.
But I don't really care about you. It's good you tried to get away from foley, but it looks like he's still going to cause you more pain for the foreseeable future. So, yea, I guess you're going to be a man and deal with it.

I'm just going to watch the circus as the clown car empties in court.

Again, the courts and the discovery will decide the reality of a actual product and your history, not me.

Good luck.

The point of the game is it was never out of their garage. Ever. Whatever they dragged into that one show burned up when plugged in.
So, does a minimum bet mean anything with something that was never on a casino floor?

Quote: AxelWolf

He never had a little yellow ball chance in hell once he had the EvenBob jinx fully focused on him.

True. I don't know my own power
sometimes..

Quote: sammydv

Sorry ahigh.
I'm not the one with credibility issues.
I'm also not the one that will be dealing with the courts.
That will be you.
And you know it.

I must admit I was surprised Aaron's
name was not on the SEC list. He was
at the top in that company for awhile,
I can't believe they overlooked him.

Quote:

So, does a minimum bet mean anything with something that was never on a casino floor?

I think it does, it makes the game a
non starter. Did it really burn up when
plugged in at the show, I'd forgotten
all about that.

Quote: AxelWolf

He never had a little yellow ball chance in hell once he had the EvenBob jinx fully focused on him.

Had he been involved with IGT or any other well known company things would have been different. The pinball was the best skill game I have seen so far.

Where can I get the prototype?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Relatively similar games (or games with a similar feature) have hit the market since the development of Vegas 2047. As far as the minimum bet is concerned, it wasn’t a penny slot, so never meant to be a low-roller game.

I’d also say look at the play time you get. Some HL rooms have a $100 single-line slot machine, or more than one, even in locals casinos. The spin is over in less than two seconds, if people would have played that, anyone with a passing interest in pinball and the money to blow would have given Vegas 2047 a try, in my opinion.

There's at least nine on the indictment, 3 or more are not listed yet.
There's almost always other names that are rolling over behind the doors and may never get listed publicly. That's just how it works.

I don't believe it was in the actual show, just in a side room area. Their original pics showed it in a small room area.
And yes, there was some 'electrical' issues that day and not sure how long it lasted. But not the whole day.
Again, I don't think anything about the game means zilch unless it hits the public floor. I don't think a 100 minimum would have been a deal breaker either. It never got a chance to prove that.

And where in the casino was the furry legged sit down game?

I have nothing much else to say about this, nor do I need to defend myself, so I'm just going to sit back and read and watch the show.

Quote: sammydv

Sorry ahigh.
I'm not the one with credibility issues.
I'm also not the one that will be dealing with the courts.
That will be you.

And you know it.

Have we hit Trolling/Bullying yet? Credibility issues could also be seen as a personal insult, I would argue.

AHigh has already stated that the SEC, at least to this point, hasn’t spoken with him. From what I can tell from the posts, he’s not being charged with anything at this point, either.

You’re also the one who said anyone, “Who worked for Foley were well in the know and it’s time to pay the piper. I don’t feel bad for the culpable.” Your statement directly states that AHigh, because he worked for Foley, was well in the know on all of this stuff. That’s more trolling, bullying and unless you have some kind of proof of AHigh’s knowledge...it’s a baseless and speculative accusation of a crime. The entire grounds for your speculation, seemingly, that he worked for the company.

In other words, complete nonsense unless you have something you’re not sharing with us.

Quote: sammydv

I have nothing much else to say about this, nor do I need to defend myself, so I'm just going to sit back and read and watch the show.

That’ll certainly be a welcome change. My only point of curiosity is why do you have such a hard-on for AHigh specifically?

Quote: sammydv

The point of the game is it was never out of their garage. Ever. Whatever they dragged into that one show burned up when plugged in.
So, does a minimum bet mean anything with something that was never on a casino floor?

I disagree completely. They clearly had a product and unfortunately it failed in the early stages. It was a novel approach to skill based gaming, which I personally thought would not work, but creativity is important and failures are expected. Most gaming manufacturers that I work with have had way many more failures than successes.

Quote: Mission146

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Relatively similar games (or games with a similar feature) have hit the market since the development of Vegas 2047. As far as the minimum bet is concerned, it wasn’t a penny slot, so never meant to be a low-roller game.

I’d also say look at the play time you get. Some HL rooms have a $100 single-line slot machine, or more than one, even in locals casinos. The spin is over in less than two seconds, if people would have played that, anyone with a passing interest in pinball and the money to blow would have given Vegas 2047 a try, in my opinion.

True, but if I remember correctly, Ahigh was adamant that the game would not have a TITO attached to it and it was comparable to a table game instead of a slot machine. Therefore it required additional labor for a casino, a non starter in todays cost cutting environment.

Add in trying to pitch a "table game" to a casino that had the potential for skill to allow it to return over 100% and I'll never understand why casinos didn't fight over placements. And every time experienced casino posters on here brought up the drawbacks, they were ridiculed for not understanding the future and the concept.

@mission
You have assumed I have a 'hard-on' for ahigh.
You are categorically wrong and creating an issue and also totally improper in inserting words in my messages that don't exist.
Anyone who worked for foley means just that ... anyone. That ahigh worked there as well is of course an inclusion, not the only identity that is implied. That's your attempted slant to discredit me.

Your attempt to twist everything will not effect me in the least as I will not further engage your games.
GL

Quote: DRich

I disagree completely. They clearly had a product and unfortunately it failed in the early stages. It was a novel approach to skill based gaming, which I personally thought would not work, but creativity is important and failures are expected. Most gaming manufacturers that I work with have had way many more failures than successes.

You have been fooled by foley like many have that there was a real product. All there was were pics and not much else including a box that was in a side room. You should read the full SEC indictment, it's not huge. It shows that almost 100% of what foley and crew did was fake and a front including ntgl. foley staged fake shows to push his fake np1 and ultrajunk. foley paid for his own awards. foley wasn't even supporting ntgl with the rent.
The next public information will most likely prove as such.

When the SEC announces publicly that they have a lawsuit against someone, it is a well known fact that means the SEC is mostly through discovery and has a case nearly complete. The SEC doesn't lose once they start the proceedings into the court. Right now it's civil, but the criminal is parallel.

Read the SEC filings. What was posted here is only the announcement. Ntgl was set up as a front for protection of foley and family and was to be a major conduit for share selling. That was short circuited by the stock troubles.

It's much more than a fake game product. Read all the filings.
foley never meant to sell anything from the nanogaming except stock. If something else fell out that he could sell off, the better for him. But the company ntgl wasn't to sell games. ntgl was a skeleton company. It didn't have proper corporation filings, foley did just enough to make it look like a legit company. Not much more.

But believe what you want. My opinion is it was a front. And I believe the courts will support my contentions.
foley didn't care who worked there.
foley didn't care whose family he ruined as long as it wasn't his. I don't think anyone could argue against me about that.

Quote: sammydv

@mission
You have assumed I have a 'hard-on' for ahigh.
You are categorically wrong and creating an issue and also totally improper in inserting words in my messages that don't exist.
Anyone who worked for foley means just that ... anyone. That ahigh worked there as well is of course an inclusion, not the only identity that is implied. That's your attempted slant to discredit me.

Your attempt to twist everything will not effect me in the least as I will not further engage your games.
GL

Whatever you say, buddy. There’s this word, ‘Interpretation,’ and what I did was interpret the literal meaning of your words that I quoted.

I’m not categorically wrong about anything and I quoted you verbatim. You said anyone who worked for Foley was in the know and culpable. That statement is based on nothing. Is every person who works any position at any company that engages in illegal affairs, ‘In the know,’ in your opinion?

Besides that, whether you have a hard on for him or not, your accusation directly refers to AHigh, who is a member here, among others. That and the part of a previous post, which I quoted, that you directed specifically at him.

I understand your statement that everyone means everyone, I don’t take issue with that. My issue is that it accuses a member here of something and you have no basis aside from an extremely loose inference to make that accusation.

You also directly stated he has credibility issues. Based on what? You’re the one leveling accusations without that little thing called proof.

Quote: Boz

True, but if I remember correctly, Ahigh was adamant that the game would not have a TITO attached to it and it was comparable to a table game instead of a slot machine. Therefore it required additional labor for a casino, a non starter in todays cost cutting environment.

Add in trying to pitch a "table game" to a casino that had the potential for skill to allow it to return over 100% and I'll never understand why casinos didn't fight over placements. And every time experienced casino posters on here brought up the drawbacks, they were ridiculed for not understanding the future and the concept.

I agree with your first paragraph 100%, but whatever he may have been adamant about, if the casino were to say, “The only way we place this is if you make it a slot machine with a TITO,” it’s hard for me to believe you’d turn that down.

I agree with your second paragraph, as well. I agree with yourself and others that I would not lead with the fact that it could be played at an advantage.

I think these things would have been hammered out with the right company behind the product.

Quote: teddys

Aaron Hightower "AHigh" was the operational head of NTGL. They had about three or four employees in Vegas and an office on Dean Martin Drive. They actually took a product to G2E two years in a row -- a skill-based pinball slot machine called Vegas 2047 (which was actually an awesome video pin) and a slightly less impressive Pacman-like product called "Casino Kat." None of the products got licensed or bought by casinos. Turns out there were issues with Foley and Gaming Control (what a surprise).

I personally believe Aaron H. did not know of the Foley stock scam. He was not a money or corporate guy. He was genuinely committed to getting a skill-based gaming product to market. Some of the stuff he did with digital displays was truly incredible. He holds more than a couple display patents including one that's very important for VR technology.

Whatever you want to believe. But know this. Ahigh was with foley the whole time foley was fraudulently selling other peoples property. ahigh may even have written some of it. Then 10 years later, after watching the man go to jail for falsely representing a property he worked on, going right back and working with the felon?
And people are to believe that a person has NO CLUE whats going on? That's giving the guy less credit than I am.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraPin

https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/UltraPin

https://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=5230

And by the way, he has addendum's to patents, not owns the actual patents. Unless you have links otherwise.

Come to all your own conclusions. You don't need anyone to explain it. And I'm not getting into all this drama again with the buddy buddy stuff that goes on. People want more insight, just read the early posts about the company or do a internet search. ntgl is deep in this SEC lawsuit and everyone- EVERYONE who worked for foley is going to get talked to.

Good luck.

Quote: sammydv

Whatever you want to believe. But know this. Ahigh was with foley the whole time foley was fraudulently selling other peoples property. ahigh may even have written some of it. Then 10 years later, after watching the man go to jail for falsely representing a property he worked on, going right back and working with the felon?
And people are to believe that a person has NO CLUE whats going on? That's giving the guy less credit than I am.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraPin

https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/UltraPin

https://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=5230

And by the way, he has addendum's to patents, not owns the actual patents. Unless you have links otherwise.

Come to all your own conclusions. You don't need anyone to explain it. And I'm not getting into all this drama again with the buddy buddy stuff that goes on. People want more insight, just read the early posts about the company or do a internet search. ntgl is deep in this SEC lawsuit and everyone- EVERYONE who worked for foley is going to get talked to.

Good luck.

"Unless I have links." You can google "aaron hightower patent." I have multiple patents with multiple companies as sole inventor sir.

Your comments here are as dorky as they come, sir.

I am entertained, and I thank you for them, sir.

Quote: Ahigh

"Unless I have links." You can google "aaron hightower patent." I have multiple patents with multiple companies as sole inventor sir.

Your comments here are as dorky as they come, sir.

I am entertained, and I thank you for them, sir.

Yet this poster in good standing warned you for the past 5+ years Foley was a fraud based on his previous STOCK dealings.

I’m willing to accept you had no clue he was a career stock scamming piece of s**t. And you only had a dream most Casino personal saw as a flawed fantasy. And you believed you knew better than both the AP players on here and the admitted casino placement managers. In fact you told them proudly they were wrong.

All the while you enjoyed printing shirts laughing at profitable casinos in Vegas “sweating” your expertise at craps. And in one of your prouder moments, blowing smoke in the office of a publicity traded company, at your investors.

Yea Ahigh, I am entertained, and yes, I Thank You for it my friend.

Beats the hell out of dreaming a fuzzy PacMan clone would take over the High Limit rooms on the strip.

As Lennon said.....never mind.

I never had anything to do with NTEK, but I'd be happy to serve as a character witness for Aaron that he is an honest man, as far as I know, and outstanding at video graphics and game design. I honestly think they had an outstanding product, but it was probably better suited towards entertainment than gambling.

Quote: Wizard

I never had anything to do with NTEK, but I'd be happy to serve as a character witness for Aaron that he is an honest man, as far as I know, and outstanding at video graphics and game design. I honestly think they had an outstanding product, but it was probably better suited towards entertainment than gambling.

Thanks. I am extremely proud of my work. It means a lot to get such kind words from you, sir.

SIR. I gave you some really good advice. Do not defend yourself on chat boards with the SEC hanging over your head. You won't win.
SIR, I don't have to prove you don't have full ownership patents, you, SIR have to prove you have patents with a direct link.
Then I will show you what kind of patents they are. I'm not googling anything for you. I looked at that info years ago. I don't make flippant comments off the top of my head. I have nothing to gain doing so.

Funny, foley made numerous claims to many patents. He had just one. A plastic box enclosure. Not all the media coding patents he claimed. It was all lies.

I understand your defensive posture, however coming back with direct personal attacks and name calling doesn't strengthen your personality profile. It's all over the internet and your in the middle of it whether you say you are or not.
You would be better off not posting anywhere about the case and discussing about your histories. Your friends on this board will help you out. But you're on your own with foley and the SEC and later with the DOJ.

You got out of the first round with the foley fraud. The second round may be a little tougher. But just about everyone here is pulling for you to beat this one too.
Like I said, good luck.

Quote: sammydv

SIR. I gave you some really good advice. Do not defend yourself on chat boards with the SEC hanging over your head. You won't win.
SIR, I don't have to prove you don't have full ownership patents, you, SIR have to prove you have patents with a direct link.
Then I will show you what kind of patents they are. I'm not googling anything for you. I looked at that info years ago. I don't make flippant comments off the top of my head. I have nothing to gain doing so.

Funny, foley made numerous claims to many patents. He had just one. A plastic box enclosure. Not all the media coding patents he claimed. It was all lies.

I understand your defensive posture, however coming back with direct personal attacks and name calling doesn't strengthen your personality profile. It's all over the internet and your in the middle of it whether you say you are or not.
You would be better off not posting anywhere about the case and discussing about your histories. Your friends on this board will help you out. But you're on your own with foley and the SEC and later with the DOJ.

You got out of the first round with the foley fraud. The second round may be a little tougher. But just about everyone here is pulling for you to beat this one too.
Like I said, good luck.

Write a letter to Donal Trump already. Gotcha, bruh.

I’m willing to accept you had no clue he was a career stock scamming piece of s**t. And you only had a dream most Casino personal saw as a flawed fantasy. And you believed you knew better than both the AP players on here and the admitted casino placement managers. In fact you told them proudly they were wrong.

The only problem with this part of your post is that he worked for Foley at the previous business that Foley went to prison for.


ZCore13

Quote: sammydv

SIR, I don't have to prove you don't have full ownership patents, you, SIR have to prove you have patents with a direct link.

I googled it and couldn't find any
patents that didn't have IGT or some
other company attached to them.
None owned outright by Ahigh.

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/aaron-hightower

Quote: Boz

Ahigh was adamant that the game would not have a TITO attached to it

And who was right about that, sir?

Quote: Ahigh

And who was right about that, sir?

So it's installed in casinos with no TITO?
Which casinos.

Quote: EvenBob

So it's installed in casinos with no TITO?
Which casinos.

Hi EvenBob. How are you doing? The same it seems.

Quote: Mission146

Whatever you say, buddy. There’s this word, ‘Interpretation,’ and what I did was interpret the literal meaning of your words that I quoted.

I’m not categorically wrong about anything and I quoted you verbatim. You said anyone who worked for Foley was in the know and culpable. That statement is based on nothing. Is every person who works any position at any company that engages in illegal affairs, ‘In the know,’ in your opinion?

Besides that, whether you have a hard on for him or not, your accusation directly refers to AHigh, who is a member here, among others. That and the part of a previous post, which I quoted, that you directed specifically at him.

I understand your statement that everyone means everyone, I don’t take issue with that. My issue is that it accuses a member here of something and you have no basis aside from an extremely loose inference to make that accusation.

You also directly stated he has credibility issues. Based on what? You’re the one leveling accusations without that little thing called proof.

@Mission
Mission, I tend to re-read threads and try to make sure I stay true to myself and not a hypocrite and will correct myself without bias. But when I see where someone such as yourself makes accusations about my conduct I just wanted to set this straight with you. I made no accusations at ahigh. It's in the way you interpret what you read and you are wrong about this. And here's my response.

Here's an update after quite some time I made about ntek/ntgl and it mentions the recent wells notice and possible lawsuit in progress. At that time I knew it meant a lawsuit and the SEC only has to announce it, but the gov shut down happened and probably delayed that until March 11/12th. No mention of ahigh

"February 18th, 2019 at 9:28:04 AM
permalink
A ntek/ntgl update. This from various sources as well as Pacer. Pacer is a free account with a generous no charge up to 10.00 dollars worth of searches and research a month.

David Foley and his wife have filed 3 so called skeleton bankruptcies meant solely to delay court and creditor processes through the court. These are basically phony devices to give someone time to do other things. Used by many to cause delays as bankruptcies normally freeze all collection actions except taxes to allow the debtors to if they are earnest, work out legit plans with creditors....etc etc"

The wellwellwell posted the link to the SEC announcement of the lawsuit I said was in progress. It certainly was.
I posted this in response because wellwell beat me to the posting punch. This is my first post with ahigh's name and just logically concluded he will be involved and he's a known public person. Do you understand that? Ahigh is still listed in ntgl sos records and filings. He's a known public company officer and I have a right to post about him. Whether you think it's an attack or not. I KNOW the courts are on my side.
"March 12th, 2019 at 6:48:21 PM
permalink
@wellwellwell
Damn, you beat me to it. I got this am from my SEC email alerts. And I had to leave.
But yes. It's civil at the moment, but the doj is already on the case and they may even preempt the SEC.
There's at least nine on the indictment and more in the wings.

And Ahigh will most likely be involved as well. You never know who your friends are.
Feels really good to be right and vindicated. More probably tomorrow. Many stock chat boards are buzzing" now.

I never mention ahighs name again, but many other people do and I don't until after he comes and posts his 'come at me' rant at just about everybody and throws my nic at the end. I said I feel vindicated because I've been saying this was a criminal enterprise since 2014 and 2015 on this very thread. I've been attacked, attempted to be banned and the thread shut down. I believe have every right to feel and voice that I'm vindicated.

All my posts up to then do not indict ahigh himself, just whomever was involved in the foley crime scam.
It was you Mission that made it your 'mission' to wrongly accuse me of accusations against ahigh. I did no such thing to that point and still kept it general to all involved with foley because that's the truth.
You are the one with the creative conjectures. Did you email ahigh and tell him someone is talking about him?

I will not stand by while you unjustly try to accuse me of something I did not do.
Kindly keep your arrogant erroneous subjective thoughts to yourself. Thank you.
You got almost all your information about ntek and ntgl from foley and his parties themselves. You have said you're a novice at stocks. After what just went down for all to see, you really expect anyone to believe anything coming from foley or crew? You also have a right to your opinions, just leave me out of your self created mind games.

As far as ahigh and his rants. He has a right to do so. Let him rant.

I'd rather get back to ntek/ntgl. Both companies became almost non existent years ago and the thread became just unrelated ramblings mostly with any decent conversations with ahigh and games were blown out of the water fairly early on. It turned into a mess just as wellwellwell had said it was going to be difficult for ahigh to justify some of the information known at that time about foley and companies. That wasn't my fault either.

Here's the original thread starter and title by Mr.V.
wellwellwell was there from day one already trying to show the scam.
I have nothing else to contribute to your line of reasoning.

Notice the word "personnel"


MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010

Threads: 310
Posts: 6775

November 5th, 2015 at 10:31:29 PM
permalink
This thread is designed for discussions about Nanotek, Nanotek gaming, its stock, its products, and its personnel.

As a stock holder in both companies, my interest is more than casual.

OK, no fear of a rule 7 suspension guys, so have at it.

Quote: Ahigh

Hi EvenBob. How are you doing? The same it seems.

It's installed in no casinos, so you're
correct. No TITO.

Quote: EvenBob

It's installed in no casinos, so you're
correct. No TITO.

It's over bro let it go.

Quote: Ahigh

"Unless I have links." You can google "aaron hightower patent." I have multiple patents with multiple companies as sole inventor sir.

Your comments here are as dorky as they come, sir.

I am entertained, and I thank you for them, sir.

Give you credit for filing any kind of patent. However, many of them were applications that haven't been granted. That's not really your fault.
The skill game never had a patent granted. I never said you didn't try to file a patent.
Just that you don't own a complete patent outright from scratch. Almost no one does.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=System+that+Allows+Players+to+Use+their+Skill+to+Gain+a+Mathematical+Advantage+in+a+Game+of+Chance&FIELD1=TI&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

Searching US Patents Text Collection ...

Results of Search in US Patents Text Collection db for:
TTL/"System that Allows Players to Use their Skill to Gain a Mathematical Advantage in a Game of Chance": 0 patents.

No patents have matched your query

Here's where to go to find your patents. As I said, you have fliers or addendums to existing patents that were still in force or ran out. You don't own any original patents that I can clearly identify. Nothing wrong in making improvements or changing something from the past though. But claims of patent ownership can be very confusing.

Everybody owns a piece of that patent before you in some way or another.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10169957.PN.&OS=PN/10169957&RS=PN/10169957

Quote: sammydv

Give you credit for filing any kind of patent. However, many of them were applications that haven't been granted.

What?

Quote: sammydv

That's not really your fault.

What?

Quote: sammydv

The skill game never had a patent granted.

The?

Quote: sammydv

I never said you didn't try to file a patent.

What?

Quote: sammydv

Just that you don't own a complete patent outright from scratch.

Huh?

Quote: sammydv

Almost no one does.

Are you serious, dude?

Quote: sammydv

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=System+that+Allows+Players+to+Use+their+Skill+to+Gain+a+Mathematical+Advantage+in+a+Game+of+Chance&FIELD1=TI&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

Searching US Patents Text Collection ...

Results of Search in US Patents Text Collection db for:
TTL/"System that Allows Players to Use their Skill to Gain a Mathematical Advantage in a Game of Chance": 0 patents.

No patents have matched your query

Here's where to go to find your patents. As I said, you have fliers or addendums to existing patents that were still in force or ran out. You don't own any original patents that I can clearly identify. Nothing wrong in making improvements or changing something from the past though. But claims of patent ownership can be very confusing.

Everybody owns a piece of that patent before you in some way or another.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=10169957.PN.&OS=PN/10169957&RS=PN/10169957

I verified with Pearson's Chi-Squared to ensure it was not random. WOV FTW!

Quote: Ahigh

What?
What?
The?
What?
Huh? Are you serious, dude?

Thanks for all the details, Ahigh. You've
made your position crystal clear.

https://www.upcounsel.com/how-much-do-inventors-make



If you need further help with patents, I invite you to do a Google search and I believe you can find some legal websites. I am not a lawyer, I don't enjoy working with lawyers. I come up with ideas, some of them I implement, and I get paid, sir. That is and has been a significant component of my professional role for quite some time.

I don't expect someone who claims that an image was substituted for the game understand this, sir. But I do wish you the best fortune, sir.

Quote: Ahigh

https://www.upcounsel.com/how-much-do-inventors-make



If you need further help with patents, I invite you to do a Google search and I believe you can find some legal websites. I am not a lawyer, I don't enjoy working with lawyers. I come up with ideas, some of them I implement, and I get paid, sir. That is and has been a significant component of my professional role for quite some time.

I don't expect someone who claims that an image was substituted for the game understand this, sir. But I do wish you the best fortune, sir.

Sorry ahigh. This has been a problem with you from the beginning. You not being capable of a civil defense and can only manage cheap narcissistic retorts AND the obvious fact that you worked with a known criminal not once but twice tells me everything I need to know.

I'll follow the courts and lawyers you'll be forced to work with when each filing is published. I don't need to defend myself or engage in your personal problems on a gambling website. You shouldn't project yourself publicly as well. I tried to warn you.
It's not a wise thing to do when everyone else you worked with is being litigated against. Seriously dude, it's not a game.

Good day SIR!

Quote: Ahigh

https://www.upcounsel.com/how-much-do-inventors-make



If you need further help with patents, I invite you to do a Google search and I believe you can find some legal websites. I am not a lawyer, I don't enjoy working with lawyers. I come up with ideas, some of them I implement, and I get paid, sir. That is and has been a significant component of my professional role for quite some time.

I don't expect someone who claims that an image was substituted for the game understand this, sir. But I do wish you the best fortune, sir.

Invent for a Company

Companies that do a lot of research and development usually have rules in place that let them own the inventions their employees create while on the job. This is called "work for hire." To encourage their employees to invent things, these companies offer bonuses and other rewards.

The biggest advantage to inventing for a company is that the company does all the investing, patenting, and marketing for you. The inventor faces no risks aside from the ones that always come with a full-time job. You don't have to spend your own money and you don't have to worry that no one will use your invention. In exchange, you get less money this way than you would from any other way.

Sorry last thing...Are you thinking you own a invention if you prescribe to this 'instruction'? Who wrote this anyways.
You work for a company, and there's processes and inventing involved, the employee signs an iron clad release of all his intellectual property created while in employ of said employer. That means you NEVER OWN YOUR INVENTION if the normal releases are signed. That company does. Completely. Forever.
Who ever wrote that paragraph is way wrong..."you don't have to worry that no one will use your invention?"
You sign off on everything. It's not your invention. You may not even be able to have your name on it.
If you manage to work a deal for more control of your IP, then maybe there's a chance. But not the way that guy who wrote that paragraph the way he did.
I hope that's not what you were meaning.
But hey, it's your world.

But GL and good day, Sir!

Quote: Ahigh

If you need further help with patents,

I know 3 people who got patents. One
worked for someone else and the patent
made his company a huge amount of
money, of which he got nothing.

The other 2 got their own patents, it
cost them an obscene amount of money,
and neither made a dime from them.
They both later said they never should
have listened to their lawyers. In fact,
patent attorney's are the only ones
who make guaranteed profit from patents.

I spent the last twenty-some years of my career working for an employer for whom we developed quite a bit of new technology. Most of the efforts were paid for through government contracts, some from private corporations. I worked with quite a few project teams involving a variety of other professionals. For the most part, we were giving away the technology solutions that we found to assist companies that needed it -- that's why the government was sponsoring the work. They also paid us to help companies learn how to use the technology effectively. Most of the topic areas related to industrial energy conservation, productivity improvement, and pollution prevention. It is an example of the government spending taxpayer money to support the general economy and public welfare, with public benefits far exceeding the cost of the contracts they fund.

We were giving the knowledge away so quickly that we generally didn't bother with formal records of invention, and certainly not the full patent process. We mostly just filed periodic and final reports of the projects.

I only have two patents listing me as inventor. I was the project director for the research leading to those patents, and I included all of the major contributors on my team as inventors on the applications. Our employer paid all of the expenses of the patent process and is responsible for costs of all subsequent marketing efforts. The employer also derives all of the licensing revenue -- the team members worked on salary.

I think this kind of arrangement is quite common.

Quote: Doc

I spent the last twenty-some years of my career working for an employer for whom we developed quite a bit of new technology. Most of the efforts were paid for through government contracts, some from private corporations. I worked with quite a few project teams involving a variety of other professionals. For the most part, we were giving away the technology solutions that we found to assist companies that needed it -- that's why the government was sponsoring the work. They also paid us to help companies learn how to use the technology effectively. Most of the topic areas related to industrial energy conservation, productivity improvement, and pollution prevention. It is an example of the government spending taxpayer money to support the general economy and public welfare, with public benefits far exceeding the cost of the contracts they fund.

We were giving the knowledge away so quickly that we generally didn't bother with formal records of invention, and certainly not the full patent process. We mostly just filed periodic and final reports of the projects.

I only have two patents listing me as inventor. I was the project director for the research leading to those patents, and I included all of the major contributors on my team as inventors on the applications. Our employer paid all of the expenses of the patent process and is responsible for costs of all subsequent marketing efforts. The employer also derives all of the licensing revenue -- the team members worked on salary.

I think this kind of arrangement is quite common.

Hi Doc, how are you? Yes it's common as a employee. The company most likely filed patents to protect it's IP.

Question. Were you allowed to walk away with that patent in it's entirety and use it at another company or resell it in any way? In other words is that patent yours to do with what you want, when you want? Can you then or now profit from that patent that you worked and designed within that company?
Thanks and take care.

It might be a misrepresentation to claim that the employer "most likely filed patents to protect it's [sic] IP." In the case I described, I don't know that there is anyone still employed there who knows how to use the technology described in the patents beyond what is written in the patent application.

I think that I clearly indicated that the patent belongs to my former employer. I was the inventor, along with my team members. In previous posts, you seem to have disparaged the creativity of inventors because they accepted that their compensation was the salary that they earned. Or in my case, add on the pension that I have been drawing for the past decade and a half. I haven't even bothered to check, but the patents may have expired by now, with the employer not having any current employees interested or capable of demonstrating the technology so as to market the potential licensing.

I bought stock in NTEK. I bought it because someone (Ahigh) presented a new idea and it certainly was interesting. Aaron invited me to his office and showed me the prototype as well as other things they were working on. My personal opinion was that the ideas, though interesting and novel, would not be successfully monetized.
But I am totally convinced that Aaron was confident in his idea and his invention, and had no malice or scam or anything like that: just he was wrong about it making money by being sold to casinos. That does not make him bad in any way. I am a tad envious of someone like him who has the balls to try and invent something.
The implications with no proof presented that Aaron was involved in any part of the 'scam' is unfair to Aaron. As always, there is never a way to 'prove' you were not part of it.
Do I regret dropping $$$$ on NTEK? Not really. I bought other gaming stocks for the same reason; that I knew someone from the board that was working at those companies. Overall I'm up a bundle.
Welcome back Aaron.

Quote: SOOPOO

I bought stock in NTEK. I bought it because someone (Ahigh) presented a new idea and it certainly was interesting. Aaron invited me to his office and showed me the prototype as well as other things they were working on. My personal opinion was that the ideas, though interesting and novel, would not be successfully monetized.
But I am totally convinced that Aaron was confident in his idea and his invention, and had no malice or scam or anything like that: just he was wrong about it making money by being sold to casinos. That does not make him bad in any way. I am a tad envious of someone like him who has the balls to try and invent something.
The implications with no proof presented that Aaron was involved in any part of the 'scam' is unfair to Aaron. As always, there is never a way to 'prove' you were not part of it.
Do I regret dropping $$$$ on NTEK? Not really. I bought other gaming stocks for the same reason; that I knew someone from the board that was working at those companies. Overall I'm up a bundle.
Welcome back Aaron.

Thank you, sir. Where he (the penny stock investor from an online penny stock message forum) came from there are plenty more stating opinion as fact. Boasting knowledge where there is only void.

It is comforting to know that so many know who I am and that I am not, perhaps, as money motivated as the next guy.

Ask AxelWolf about me not being motivated by money, LOL.

Quote: Doc

It might be a misrepresentation to claim that the employer "most likely filed patents to protect it's [sic] IP." In the case I described, I don't know that there is anyone still employed there who knows how to use the technology described in the patents beyond what is written in the patent application.

I think that I clearly indicated that the patent belongs to my former employer. I was the inventor, along with my team members. In previous posts, you seem to have disparaged the creativity of inventors because they accepted that their compensation was the salary that they earned. Or in my case, add on the pension that I have been drawing for the past decade and a half. I haven't even bothered to check, but the patents may have expired by now, with the employer not having any current employees interested or capable of demonstrating the technology so as to market the potential licensing.

In previous posts, you seem to have disparaged the creativity of inventors because they accepted that their compensation was the salary that they earned.
No. Never wrote that or implied it at all. Nothing to do with salaries.
As per your answers, the correct and logical statement would be "I invented something in addition to an existing patent, or added something so new it got it's own number but never owned the design as it was worked on under employment to a company.

Thus to claim ownership in that situation and only that company situation would not be a correct statement. I am not claiming anyone is stating this, just wanted to make that particular point clear.

As with david foleys sole invention, the design was based off of numerous other enclosures which had to be included in the filings. So foley's claims of invention of an enclosure was not original in the least. But he claimed owned and original invention. That was my point about patents and inventions. One works with someone else box design and changes the hinge and screw placement isn't exactly inventing anything new. In foleys case it was meant as deceptive advertising in his scams. Everything else foley said and did was a lie or fake.

Thanks for the input. Always appreciate your even moderation of subjects.

Quote: sammydv

Quote: Doc

It might be a misrepresentation to claim that the employer "most likely filed patents to protect it's [sic] IP." In the case I described, I don't know that there is anyone still employed there who knows how to use the technology described in the patents beyond what is written in the patent application.

I think that I clearly indicated that the patent belongs to my former employer. I was the inventor, along with my team members. In previous posts, you seem to have disparaged the creativity of inventors because they accepted that their compensation was the salary that they earned. Or in my case, add on the pension that I have been drawing for the past decade and a half. I haven't even bothered to check, but the patents may have expired by now, with the employer not having any current employees interested or capable of demonstrating the technology so as to market the potential licensing.

In previous posts, you seem to have disparaged the creativity of inventors because they accepted that their compensation was the salary that they earned.
No. Never wrote that or implied it at all. Nothing to do with salaries.
As per your answers, the correct and logical statement would be "I invented something in addition to an existing patent, or added something so new it got it's own number but never owned the design as it was worked on under employment to a company.

Thus to claim ownership in that situation and only that company situation would not be a correct statement. I am not claiming anyone is stating this, just wanted to make that particular point clear.

As with david foleys sole invention, the design was based off of numerous other enclosures which had to be included in the filings. So foley's claims of invention of an enclosure was not original in the least. But he claimed owned and original invention. That was my point about patents and inventions. One works with someone else box design and changes the hinge and screw placement isn't exactly inventing anything new. In foleys case it was meant as deceptive advertising in his scams. Everything else foley said and did was a lie or fake.

Thanks for the input. Always appreciate your even moderation of subjects.

we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

Quote: sammydv

Quote: Doc

In previous posts, you seem to have disparaged the creativity of inventors because they accepted that their compensation was the salary that they earned.

No. Never wrote that or implied it at all.

Quote: sammydv

I'll follow the courts and lawyers you'll be forced to work with when each filing is published. I don't need to defend myself or engage in your personal problems on a gambling website. You shouldn't project yourself publicly as well. I tried to warn you.

I don't get on gambling websites to defend myself. I mostly get on here to interact with people who need help. Lots of people have been helping you, and that's what is known as an objective truth.

You might want to look into epistemology as well.

As far as courts, I recently heard an opinion from someone who runs and electric car company.

He said, "juries are pretty good." He nodded and pursed his lips.

That's enough for me, brother.

You believe in falsehoods, sir. Another objective truth I am stating. If you wish to learn there are many individuals here with all kinds of expertise that I do not have that can help you sir.

Quote: Ahigh

Ask AxelWolf about me not being motivated by money, LOL.

Did he try the old “It’s not gay if I do it to you” line on you as well?

Quote: Ahigh

He said, "juries are pretty good." He nodded and pursed his lips.
That's enough for me, brother.

If the prosecution has compelling evidence,
juries are also very good at convictions.

Quote: Ahigh

And who was right about that, sir?

You were 100% correct Ahigh. No casino accepted the game with a TITO.

Of course you win. Every casino that placed your game accepted it under your terms, absolutely with no TITO. And they all agreed to dedicate a salaried employee as a cashier to provide access to the game, exactly as you envisioned. Silly me thinking it needed a TITO.

Congratulations, I’m glad everything worked out as you planned. Hopefully the residuals are rolling in and more than make up for any hardships your relationship with pieces of s*** like the Foleys caused you.

PS, I found a SF Rush 2049 game recently in Florida and it took my .25. Any chance I can get it back?