If Turtle Bay Technologies [1] (registered in the UK, Company No. 06729738) is, as many people believe, behind the incorporation of Minkus EDS [2] who exactly is behind Turtle Bay?
A quick search of UK Companies House [3] revealed: –
- That the sole director is Mr Jeffrey Jon Ronaldi [4], CEO at Turtle Bay Technologie
- The share holder is a company (also registered in the UK, Company No. 06529491) called Juridica Capital Management (UK) Ltd [5].
[6]Juridica Capital Management Limited describe themselves as a lawyer-owned financial services company operated in an investment banking tradition and focused exclusively on capital and finance for corporations, law firms, lawyers, and claim-holders worldwide.
Directors of that company include; Richard W. Fields (Chairman of the Board of Directors), Timothy D. Scrantom, Richard Battey (non-executive member of the Board of Directors, Peter Radford (non-executive member of the Board of Directors) and Andrew Lindsay (non-executive alternate member of the Board of Directors).
A case study, found on the Turtle Bay website [7] sounds slightly familiar, we quote “This Fortune 500 telecommunications company was awarded a patent for a technology developed by their R&D department. However, the invention was outside the company’s core business and never deployed commercially” – that Fortune 500 telecommunications company could perhaps be Motorola?
Then again it could easily be any other dozen or so Telcos and it would seem perhaps a little early to put up a case study on a bit of business that has only just began
However it gives you a sense of their modus operandi [8]. This is time, seriously for the industry to stick together.
3 Comments To "Turtle Bay Modus Operandi"
#1 Comment By Larry Joseph On 16 August 2010 @ 18:19 @805
It read the patent filing. I am unclear as to exactly what the issues are e.g. what infringement is being alleged. Could you please elaborate on this?
#2 Comment By Ian On 16 August 2010 @ 18:28 @811
How come they aren’t suing every ATM operator in the world, when the technology, remote confirmation etc is basically the same…they have no chance
#3 Comment By Brian Smith On 16 September 2010 @ 00:22 @057
I doubt the ATM machine has much to do with ‘remote confirmation’ from the display. The patent basically describes a system (using primitive means) which allows a display to send back a confirmation that it has received a message and it was displayed successfully.
Most ATM machines are basically PC monitors and operate like any other display. The PC sends a video output to the display (text, video, etc). There is no feedback from the display. It’s like if you unplugged your monitor…there is no way for the PC to know. Same applies to your TV at home.
The patent is complete non-sense and is used to extort money.