In reply to bob.

Hmmm, that comment reads like a media release—lots of hot air and little substance …

All I know is that most people store their funds in a licensed, prudentially regulated, usually deposit insured, financial institution; therefore payments invariably have to move from a payer's banking account to a payee's banking account; to my knowledge the only way of electronically accessing those funds remotely, with the authority of the payer, is, in real time, via a MasterCard/Visa credit/debit card or EFTPOS card, or, in non-real time, via ACH where the payer has given the payee an authority to make such a debit, and such transactions are aggregated for overnight settlement and are subject to reversal the following day if insufficient funds/credit is available. …

The retail banks also offer perfectly effective ways for payers to make payment via their internet banking services, directly to other banking accounts and also via their BPay service …

I’ve skimmed your “Summary of the Invention” and, frankly, I can’t see how what you offer betters what the banks already offer …

“SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION …
“Implementations may provide one or more of the following advantages. In one implementation, a fully integrated online check processing system is provided that functions much like credit card authorization and settlement, but is much more universally available to consumers or other users. Unlike transactions involving credit cards or a funds transfer system associated with the ACH network, the electronic images of authorized demand drafts created by the check payment/processing system cannot be easily or readily reversed, and are acceptable at every U.S. bank. Moreover, the check processing system is not subject to NACHA rules and/or other regulatory oversight.”

That statement appears somewhat disingenuous to me. Regardless, with respect to a remote purchase, why would any payer accept a system that “cannot be easily or readily reversed” and “is not subject to NACHA rules and/or other regulatory oversight.” Payers may as well make their payments via eBay’s clunky “PreyPal” and take pot luck on getting the goods and then face the nightmare of dealing with “PreyPal” to reverse the payment if the goods don’t arrive or are not as described …

Sorry Bob, but my initial thoughts are you have got as much chance of selling this “check” service, as the MCX consortium (and Joseph Corcoran)—who would also love to cut the banks’ credit card systems out of the payments loop—has of selling “CurrentC” to consumers, and that is, in my humble opinion, effectively zero …