I recently received an e-mail touting a new Forex robot called Forex Striker. The subject of the e-mail made an amazingly bold claim that stated, “The First USA Patented FX Robot Technology Is Here!”
Although I receive e-mails that make all sorts of claims I was still curious enough to go to the Forex Striker website just to see what the hype was about. There I saw a picture and underneath the picture there was wording to the effect of a, “government verified patent”. On the image itself there was a button that said, “click to verify”.
I clicked on the, “click to verify” button and was taken to what appeared to be a copy of a certificate of registration from the United States copyright office. Okay, that was all well and good, but I was interested in seeing the actual documentation to support the claim of, “The First USA Patented FX Robot Technology Is Here!”. I then spotted a link that said, “you can see patent here”. I clicked on the link and was taken to a document from the database of a “Copyright Catalog”. Once again that was all well and good, but I still didn’t see anything to support the claim that this technology had been patented.
After some additional searching I simply could not find any information for this supposedly revolutionary new Forex robot. As someone familiar with intellectual property and the documentation involved it does appear that Forex Striker has been registered with the US copyright office. As anyone familiar with intellectual property can tell you a copyright is not the same as a patent. In fact, even though both copyright and patent are designed to protect intellectual property they are extremely different forms of intellectual property protection.
Based upon what I’ve seen my assessment is that the claim of Forex Striker being the, “The First USA Patented FX Robot Technology Is Here!” is inaccurate as there is no patent information to be found. Now there is always the possibility that I simply could not locate the patent information as I do not claim to be an intellectual property expert. What I do know is that the patent information that is claimed leads to a page showing a copyright. The particular registration number that starts with, “TX” is a registration number from the copyright office.
In conclusion any company that claims that its product is patented when it is actually copyrighted is not a company whose product I would recommend. Whether the misrepresentation was intentional in order make the product appear more impressive or a mistake it is still a misrepresentation.
