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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (12339)	12/8/1999 1:04:00 AM
From: johnzhang	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

RE: Visx Mike, Because of the traditional use of the term, open, it's easy to confuse that term with "non-proprietary," which is what I assume you meant to write. Yes, and thanks for clarifying it. To further clarify the terminology which is vital to the understanding of this stuff, have you actually read and comprehended the ruling? No, I didn't read the ruling itself. However, the Visx patent claim ruled to be invalid is the key for Visx. It's about the use of Excimer Laser for the eyesight surgery. Since Excimer laser itself is not an invention of Visx and commercially available, there's nothing to block competitive from entering the laser vision correction field once the patent claim is invalid. Think the Excimer Laser as a surgical knife, now everybody is allowed to build and sell his own brand of knives. Still, Visx could be a good investment if it becomes the best "knife maker", but one has to understand the nature of royalty game and watch its business development carefully. John