Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mark calder who wrote (2309)	6/17/1999 11:05:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 19428

mark, I've read the MVIS thread. It does not support your interpretation of things, IMO. Barb

To: mark calder who wrote (2309)	6/17/1999 11:23:00 PM
From: Mad2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Mark here's a fellow "patent reviewer" who has been singing the praise of PRST from 100 down to it's current level of 7. This one would be worth your study so you don't fall in the same trap. Be very carefull. Member 4261249 Mad2

To: mark calder who wrote (2309)	6/18/1999 4:06:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 19428

mark, I would not have posted the "review" of the patents, if Joseph did not ask me to spend two hours of my time on it. I repeat, these two patents have their independent claims "sloppy", simply because the Heisenberg principle dictates that you cannot "scan a photon". Id you were not so blind in your bullishness, you would have noted that in the same remarks that this fact by itself (these specific two patents I looked at) have nothing to do with the potential success or lack thereof of the company. I certainly was not going to do your homework (or Joseph's) in looking at any other patents after Joseph told me he got a "response" from the IP man there, but refused to tell me what it was. I do look at many situations and have limited time for fruitless arguments. My recommendation to short had nothing to do with the future prospects or lack thereof of the company, if you read my short scenario for MU, it was based on exactly the same principle. When the stock was at $16, I lauded management for their ability to get "cheap" money into the coffer and said then that there is a very good chance that during the second half the stock will have been above $24 for at least $20 days (sorry, as usual I was wrong, and it all happened during the tail end of the first half), I was right, once it got to $28, I said it has a very good probability to go down to mid teens under the pressure of conversion, so far, I smell like a rose and you are ranting non sense. We will be able to check how accurate your forecast of 750,000 short sold shares in the next two weeks. I can assure you that the next report will probably have much less than 750,000 short position. To get to this number, you'll have to assume that in the last month all selling was short selling. Have a very good day. Zeev