Well, Larry, I looked over that post from Herbert and, by golly, there's nothing I'd call "ridicule" in there. Herbert simply makes the point that Valence personnel are the most qualified to assess the patents. As you know, the CEO has done just that in a conference call - the same CEO who has quickly built a reputation for his cruel understatement. Extracting a bullish comment from Lev Dawson in a CC is like pulling teeth.
Furthermore, weren't you one of the more vocal critics of Dawson's tight-lipped approach to the last call? If so, which is it? Do you value his insight or don't you? What is (selectively, I guess) wrong with his clear statement in an earlier call about Valence's patent strength?
I also read Zeev's post about his review of 40 abstracts pertaining to Valence patents. I also read the quick conclusion he drew from this valiant effort, noting the absence of supporting evidence for his conclusion. The post contained little substantive information - a criticism I see you toss (selectively, I guess) at the FMK link.
Please be aware that I do value Zeev's contributions to the thread in areas of impartial technical expertise. But the problem I'm having is that I also read you guys as rather opportunistic. (And, for the record, I was one of the recipients of Zeev's "prospectus" that stirred up some controversy with SI awhile back. I personally didn't mind receiving it; I just viewed it as rather, er, opportunistic.)
In that regard, how do you currently assess the Valence "trading dream"? Message 6146507
|
