Member Info for BobsSocks

And we have our first implosion.

Please contact bob@example.com if you wish to ask off-topic questions.

I am quite surprised people here approach their investments on the basis of other people's shallow interpretations of life according to QBT combined with peripheral and largely meaningless tertiary indicators along with a dose of he who shouts "Troll Trying to Get in at a Lower Price" loudest rules.

There is, after all, a wealth of knowledge available at your fingertips. Of course that assumes you have not worn them down to stumps by typing seemingly meaningful words formatted into actual sentences. It is much easier to copy and paste the same old same old that seemed to work for you without realising it did not the last 562 times you tried it this month, still does not and never will.

With the above in mind and given that a lot of this information is not only accessible from the comfort of your own chair, or pit, but there are many sources and explainers that make the information accessible to your mind which go beyond car analogies and alchemy perhaps people might like to hunt down and post links to this information for the collective good?

My opening suggestion for a subject of interest would be "Is SHA256 Breakable?" After all this is in effect what QBT are claiming and what you are all banking on. I suppose a subsidiary follow on would be "What if SHA256 was Breakable?" Let's try to find some opinions outside of this local box and beyond the Company PR.

For those of you are quick on the uptake you may notice that I have published what might be considered to be a Master Troll. I sound friendly and as if I have your best interests in mind. You get to do the work and seed your own doubts.

Some of you will survive but others will simultaneously implode whilst crawling back to their previous lines of defence as they accuse you of being liars, shorters, tying to get back in, being paid 10p a post and the usual verbal fodder that steams their minds but gives temporary relief from reality.

There can be no other way. Let Battle Commence.

Sorry. Decoding predictable loaded incoherency sounds like too much hard work.

In which the author takes a deep dive into The Art of Troll and accuses everyone else of behaving like themselves and receives rave reviews from purchasers who like reading about themselves.

I am in nom mode and preparing to let the cat in so he can nom and we can go to bed.

Glass Houses. First Stones. You did it first and so on. The last refuge of the original sinners.

Top Tip to those who do not wish to read my posts because you are not influenced by them . Stop moaning and don't read them.

Night Night.

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately you appear to have missed the copy of the e-mail I sent. Perhaps you might wish to read the words that were sent. As if you haven't.

Unfortunately Mail Server Says...

Nov 18 20:13:08 BobsSocks postfix/smtp(12146): 1AACD1F478: to (section21.ipo.house), relay=ipo-gov-uk.mail.protection.outlook.com(52.101.68.21):25, delay=0.87, delays=0.03/0.02/0.2/0.61, dsn=2.6.0, status=sent (250 2.6.0 (zzyd0a39843bc47ae7770b0ayyzd1f010c303e69.camel.BobsSocks) (InternalId=00006924126878, Hostname=RTYP123MA5937.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM) 11713 bytes in 0.043, 263.331 KB/sec Queued mail for delivery)

So I guess someone else will have to make a decision as to how confused I am.

Can you ask your compatriot to stop with the repetitive posts?

Thanks.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I lead a sad life but here is another straw to clutch at.... or maybe not.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentability

Go back to,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321/Documents

and have a look at the Examiners objections to the Applicants protestations.

Relationship with the EPC and decisions of the EPO

1.09.1

However in Aerotel/Macrossan, the Court of Appeal analysed EPO Boards of Appeal decisions on the question of excluded matter and concluded that practice was not yet sufficiently settled to enable the Court to depart from precedent UK case-law (see 1.11). This was reiterated in Symbian Ltd’s Application [2009] RPC 1 (Symbian) (see paragraph 46) and HTC v Apple (see 1.09.2), and it remains the case until the UK courts conclude otherwise.

This is what the Examiner has used under MOPP to argue against the Applicants representations on the same subject matter. Comments from the hard of thinking who make up stuff without reading the relevant documents will be giggled at.

"And it remains the case until the UK courts conclude otherwise."

You do not try to argue with an Examiner on The Rule of Mopp. Especially when they are Cerberus and protecting their own territory.

So... Good luck with the application under EPO/PCT,

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP22793447&tab=main

Get used to being in Hell. Let's go Angus!1!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNfpkK5Uzqg

For those who think I am trying to catch up...

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/bobssocks/

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/jambone/

It would be like me having small reproductive organs and trying to project my issues on someone else.

Here you go...

section21@ipo

"Dear Sirs,

Naturally I would prefer my observations to be made anonymously. Such anonymity is available under EPO and I hope that this would apply here.

The application in its current form is subject to rejection by the Examiner as being a computer programme and/or a business method.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentability

Excluded subject matter

Section 1(2)

(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;

Specifically "mathematical method".

Given SHA256 is a mathematical method then whilst the applicants have identified invariants subject to prior calculation for subsequent use which might be done as a matter of course they also appear to claim to have identified variants that may be subject to similar manipulation.

Does such an identification not also fall within the realms of a mathematical method?

Faithfully

BobsSocks."

Just to create more controversy.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321/Documents

Is already subject to the possibility of rejection on the basis that it is a computer programme and/or a business method.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-1-patentability

Perhaps I should contact the UK Patent Office and make an observation under S21 that the examiner might also be inclined to consider Section 1(2) (a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;

Specifically "mathematical method".

After all, and I may be wrong, but the application also appears to fall under that restriction in as much as it appears to be using the maths to short circuit the maths and all they will do is consider the suggestion.

HedgeHogs are also on my ignore list but I would prefer things if they did not try to attack me by acting like anti-troll trolls. Owning your own bad hair day may result in collateral damage and, as I may have mentioned previously, you do not wish to give a reason for a patent examiner to refer to the MOPP.

Hi @Jez.

Sorry to drag it back up.

Being me with my negatives it did not appear to create much of a noise in itself unless you read around the thread and see the usual suspects discounting the news or otherwise trying to push it off the page with other fluff. However if you care to dig back then, from an historical perspective, you can almost see the company responding to the news by spinning another story without giving what might or should have been the real reason for the change in direction.

Is it any different?

I do apologise for giving the resident anti-troll troll the opportunity to up their post count. I shall now revert to ignore mode. ITMT the person concerned might wish to seek out Guy Macon and discover The Acoustics of Empty Halls. BTW I don't recommend Mr Macon as a mentor.

Sigh...

OK Addison. I apologise. Under the guise of protecting my own bottom I did throw one in your direction. I can also recognise that your previous rant at Jez which occurred during one of my posts when you accused them of being all people under the Sun was in fact not directed at me. That was mistaken. I have no idea why it would happen.

Then again...

"pmsl bobssocks, you sir are a liar, never owned shares here, only turned up trolling this same ****e a day before the placing was announced,"

Perhaps Mr Jambone can identify where I have lied? No, didn't think so. Otherwise I have no idea, OK maybe I do, as to what is going on in the pool of cess between his ears.

My first post to this board was on 26th November. The placing was on...

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/investor-relations/regulatory-news

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_Placing_30_Oct_23_final_-.pdf

the 30th of October, four days later.

So not only am I supposedly a liar I am also party to inside information as well as being multiple people inside Mr Jambone's head.

Oh by the way, idiot, you've already been through your initial Standard Attack Plan, as suffered by everyone else you have ever responded to, and you already know I am not invested because I told you. You also know I have a bid in for QBT at 1.5p and a bid of 1.25p in for GST.

That is because I consider both shares to be incredibly volatile and yes, if I get the opportunity to trade them and make a profit I will do so. If I lose it is money I can lose. It's a small play. I have that luxury.

Don't expect my attitude to change if I do end up invested here. I may still post what I have found along with an interpretation of it and links in support of my view.

Perhaps you should think back to that time the Playground Bully offered to be your best mate for a sweetie and you gave him the sweetie to laugh at the other kids and he still bullied you. That's what you have become.

Is it any wonder tensions run a bit high around here when the master of conspiracy theories spends his weekend trying to make mates by attacking harmless Flat Earthers?

Thank you for the clarification...

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/jezconnor/?page=18

Whilst it might look like I am having a pop I do understand that reconstructing the past can be a difficult thing to do. However I have previously been accused of being people who I am not and of saying things I have not. Just in case that happens here,

"I sold almost all my shares the moment I was made aware of the response from the patent office around the 21st September at around 1.3p."

I only posted the information about the possibility that one of the patents QBT had applied for on this board, my first post, on 26th October. As a result I might only assume that Addison was aware of this over a month before I was but chose not to reveal that information. Possibly fearful of the wrath that might, and did, descend from The Mob.

Being slightly blind I have been trying to work out when the applicant might respond to the most recent objections from the examiner based on previous events,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2611321/Documents

However, as Euclid, has pointed out the answer to that one is here,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB2113962.1/193c54f4-4c15-458d-aaf2-bedf70cb2100/GB2611321-20230921-Letter%20%20Exam.pdf

The last cover letter from the examiner requires a response by 23rd November, next Thursday. Unless this is received or the applicant takes up the offer of a conference call it is possible that, subject to appeal, the application will be treated as withdrawn. I.E. It will have failed.

I would suggest that it is squeaky bottom time and we will know before the end of this year whether the application has been refused. Naturally I would hope that the company announces as such via regulatory channels. After all they were prepared to do so when the application was made.

Again I notice that some of you are trying to suggest that going the SaaS route offers the company protection for their IP but that is and can only be the case if they have not previously disclosed that IP. The application is such a disclosure and, if you assume it was made honestly and discloses the technology and the means to implement it.

Now because I am not some snotty ramper who makes stuff up to suit my book but likes to give and link to complete information to underpin my rambles there is still another straw that might be clutched at. In the accompanying letter from the examiner,

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB2113962.1/16b26341-fe3a-444f-9221-3f1901aa4961/GB2611321-20230921-Exam%20report%20%20Standard.pdf

Reference is made to a conflicting application made via the PCT. This is standard filing practice but once again the applicants appear to have messed up. You file an initial application via your local jurisdiction, in this case the UK. This gives you a priority date. Withing twelve months of that priority date you can seek wider protection via the PCT. However if you do so you must withdraw the UK application whilst using it as priority under the PCT.

That PCT application is here,

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=4&adjacent=true&FT=D&date=20230406&CC=WO&NR=2023052762A1&KC=A1#

As such they might fail and withdraw the UK application but continue under the PCT. However the PCT will be aware of the actions and objections of the UK Office and will be likely to treat the PCT application in the same manner. Again it is likely that it will fail.

To me this is a matter of trust. How on one hand can a company boast about the value of their technology with the promise of protection via patents, continue to do so, and at the same time not keep investors up to date as to the progress, or lack thereof, of such applications?

"Bobsocks / Wexboy on X"

Rambling Rant Snipped.

Hi Addison,

"How me saying "funded to revenue 👍" is a lie apparently..."

In case you did not notice I was responding to Mr Jam so I have no idea why you should leap out of your box and publish a load of rubbish suggesting I have said things I have not said or your accusations of me being others, who are in the room with you at the moment, who you can name.

I invite you to go do one and then calm down.

Well. Obviously I should try not to type because every time I do you flood the board with more misrepresentations of what the company is allowed to claim for themselves.

Bye for now.

xxx

Apologies for popping up again but someone on the internet is wrong.

"We are funded to revenue which is a very strong statement to make"

https://quantumblockchaintechnologies.co.uk/images/QBT_-_Placing_30_Oct_23_final_-.pdf

"We are extremely pleased to have completed this £2 million fundraise, as we *believe* it will fund the Company through to revenue."

It is a statement of belief rather than a statement of fact as Mr Jam would have you believe.

Other caveats may apply.

Https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/47875eb4-0ae0-477b-b7be-aa2501904f8c

ROFL Peak Wall Street.

My ISA will not deal with Nasdac Nordic and other than Wyld I have no confidence in the rest of the portfoilio companies. Even in the case of Wyld whilst they impressed by hammering away in their niche to adapt to and operate in different markets within their area of expertise I think they have reached the pinnacle of that niche and where they will go within it. I have no doubts they will succeed and be relatively successful but for the moment it is hard slog time.