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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Patriot Scientific - PTSC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frederic Herman who wrote (4108)	12/30/1997 7:21:00 PM
From: bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8581

Frederic, I find it interesting that some people have the impression that Patriot Scientific is somehow less than accurate in their portrayal of their PSC1000 as a java native processor. Semantics aside, I don't see Patriot publishing outright lies like some other companies: exchange2000.com Why don't you call Sun yourself to see if LG's java chip has been delivered. All we have heard from Sun and others is when their chips will be ready, and of course they never are. Or how about the Rockwell announcement about thier java chip, that wasn't even using the picoJava core as had been advertised. In fact, the chip was in ceramic, not silicon, and is still not ready. My point here is that I see alot of dishonest and deceitful pronouncements from some very large and reputable companies yet not once have I seen anything of the sort being announced from Patriot. I fail to see any deceit coming from them. If thier PSC1000 is impractical or non-functional, I have only myself to blame for buying into the story, the company has in no way given me false information like I have seen coming from others. Why dosen't Mr. Tara attack those companies for their falsehoods? BTW, their picoJava has a JIT built into the chip, so even in that product some compilation will be necessary. Cap

To: Frederic Herman who wrote (4108)	12/31/1997 8:16:00 AM
From: Benedict Arnold	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8581

With all respect Mr. Herman, I've been through a mass of detailed technical posting with Jon about the chip several months back and he simply thinks he knows more than he does. I've been designing and working with microprocessor systems for more than 20 years, and Forth and stack machines almost as long as that. Jon understands "enough to be dangerous" but not enough to make the technical distinctions he attempts to make. And certainly not the factual ones when he is either not in possession of them or can't quote (read?) his sources accurately. If Jon had gone "out of his way to be specific and accurate" he would copy or link to all the alledged references he critizes. But he doesn't. Why? He would certainly have less to say, and I would be correcting him less, if he did. Maybe Jon and my views are different because he does not own any stock in Patriot and I do. (He probably owns SUNW). Any investor who does any due diligence will know immediate that the PSC1000 executes translated bytecodes. The press releases are simply not a problem. While I personally refuse to use the term "Java Processor" in reference to the PSC1000 (despite Jon's lies), I see no problem with it as a matter of press releases and advertising for Patriot. As a stockholder, if calling it a "Java Processor" helps Patriot sell chips, do it. Patriot's ethics regarding the content of their media are at least as high as the industry standard. If Jon owns stock in any of the competition (SUNW or otherwise), at least there would be a rational reason why he is complaining. While you may feel the attach was undeserved, if you check back to when Jon first started posting, you'll note that he primarily tries to dig up dirt on Patriot rather than be informative. Maybe he aspires to be a republican congressman during the Clinton presidency. Yet the subjects most attacked have been throughly discussed here before, so he has nothing new to say, and the accusations he makes on the alledged dirt he's discovered are often inaccurate or irrelevant. I find him quite tiresome, as many other SI participants I personally know do. But then, I know several medical professionals that moan when they watch ER. Just because someting is not completely accurate does not mean it is not appropriately useful. So they watch it every week. As for the current non-issue, there's nothing going on here but marketing slant. As an investor, I don't mind a bit and I've yet to read anyone here who thinks it a problem enough to even comment directly in areement with Jon. And while I not willing to spend the time rereading all the posts here, I thing this applies to every rant Jon has made on this thread. Benedict Arnold

To: Frederic Herman who wrote (4108)	12/31/1997 10:03:00 AM
From: J.S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8581

One thing is for sure about Jon's posts. He repeats the same points over and over. These points are not contested. The journalistic gloss on these facts is the point of contention. As this is not a cut and dried issue there is room for disagreement. He has made his points and so have others. They are trivial issues even in the universe of this small BB stock. Let's give it a rest. As for his comments about the recent financing structure, he has made some inaccurate statements some of which I have already pointed out. We all make mistakes. As for me, I may have stated something which suggested that a five day average was being used for PTSC's convertible debenture conversion price. It is in fact a 10 day average. By next week Monday we should have about 10 days at the current bid of about 65 cents. If the stock goes to a bid of about 50 cents (Staff buy?) my guess is that the debenture holders are controlling the stock. If the stock surges for January then maybe it was tax loss selling that brought it way down despite all the positive news (if only counting the radar/antenna technology). Would appreciate any firm information, especially a public one by the company. Hanging in there, Joe