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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : BCB VOICE SYSTEMS INC. (c.BIV) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Flora Wood who wrote (65)	3/20/1998 1:04:00 AM
From: George K.	Respond to of 440

Hello Flora, Thank you for your replies. You seem surprised that I took the time to look up the patent. In fact you should be more surprised that more people didn't check into it earlier. A lot of BCB shareholders are starting to feel that management is painting a picture in the annual report which is quite a bit brighter than the actual situation. My feeling was that in a few months, that patent will be the only asset left in the company, so I wanted to check out what it was worth. As to having access to the patent office, it is accessible to everyone. The address is www.uspto.gov where you can get the abstracts and other information. I believe it's about U$5 or U$10 to get the body of the patent by mail or fax. Best regards, George.

To: Flora Wood who wrote (65)	3/20/1998 5:44:00 PM
From: J J	Respond to of 440

Flora & everybody, Ken at BCB has replied to me pdq on George's patent posting on this topic, and refers to your (Flora's) posting here for an answer to my query for clarification - so I won't bother you with reposting it here. However, I do have a few comments on Flora's message which I'll address in responses to subsequent postings. Suffice it to say, it appears Ken Murton is listening and BCB is now monitoring this thread. JJ

To: Flora Wood who wrote (65)	3/20/1998 5:54:00 PM
From: J J	Respond to of 440

Flora, As I said, I have a couple of comments, but I'll only address one here as the others are more appropriate to George's subsequent postings. The one comment you made re Windows 95 & 98; << Also, the DOS horror you express is probably not well grounded, as Windows 95 and 98 run on top of DOS.>>; does not sit as exactly true with me. It is my understanding that Windows 3.1 runs on top of DOS, but what made Windows 95 so "marketable" was the fact that it did not. Perhaps if any of you out there are versed in this area, you could clarify. JJ