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 : Fonar - Where is it going? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WebDrone who wrote (10610)	7/31/1998 12:27:00 AM
From: Kramer	Respond to of 19354

To All, Anyone have any earnings release date? eom

To: WebDrone who wrote (10610)	7/31/1998 2:33:00 AM
From: SpinShooter	Respond to of 19354

WebDrone: I've been following this FONAR discussion with interest and, like you, am an Old Futzer in MR . I believe I have met you, maybe at a Workshop in Milwaukee? From your Project description I might also have been one of the tourists in your labs, ten years ago, if they were housed in an old army barracks-like building of the Electric and Computer Engineering Department at the UW in Madison, where I was visiting then. Right person? Yes you are straight on about Jay Singer at Berkley, whose work on peripheral vascular human flow measurement using NMR in real people began with publications in 1959, and continued through the 1980s. Your observations on actual the "FONAR" (Field fOcussed Nuclear mAgnetic Resonance) scanner, built until about 1983, are also correct ... the FONAR-machine design (not a modern MRI gradient scanner) was first described by a Japanese research group, some relatively famous scientists .. including Abe and Tanaka. Their later US patent issued in late 1975 or early 1976, considerably before "FONAR" began to constuct that design and named it "FONAR". Also Lauterbur's written Invention Record and Disclosure for the gradient Fourier encoding (modern MRI) concept has been published (in a book very much oriented toward Dr. Damadian). Paul Lauterbur's 1971 Disclosure was for NMR Specialties where both Damadian and Lauterbur were doing research in the early 1970's. It is dated September of 1971, 7 or 8 months before Dr. Damadian filed his patent application to use relaxation times to diagnose cancer (in pathologist excised specimens). Lauterbur also published the first MR image, just a feasibility demo using a water "lab phantom" setup. Damadian's "1974 patent" later was dismissed in Patent Court as invalid for in-vivo measurements (it did not teach how one could localize an in-vivo NMR measurement, by any physically possible technique. This occurred in a 1980s (unsuccessful) suit FONAR brought for MRI infringement against Technicare/ Johnson-and-Johnson -- in which I was a backup "disinterested" consultant. However, when all is said and done, WebDrone, I think that you should not be too critical, but cut some slack for Raymond Damadian .. credit for a most remarkable history of activity. He was surely the one who did bring publicity and recognition to NMR measurement for discriminating different kinds of tissues ... it is just too bad that the Cancer Detection he published later turned out not to apply.. except to the rodent tumor models he first studied. Still, in those first papers, he DOES state how important it might be if one could only measure localized internal NMR signals in-vivo for humans -- and in a Biology/Biophyics oriented paper. Jay Singer said the same, as did Nobel Lauerate Ed Purcell, but their papers were all in heavy Physics, Applied Physics and IEEE Journals ..they did not generate the awareness that Damadians "Science" papers did. In passing, people here name "Dave Terry". Perhaps I am misremebering, but wasn't Dr. Damadian's wife a Terry? Could this be the "brother in law" Terry who once did FONAR fund raising in the late 1970s? I seem to recall also a "Terry Books" outlet for FONAR sponsored works somewhere on Long Island. Ciao, SpinShooter

To: WebDrone who wrote (10610)	7/31/1998 8:32:00 AM
From: FRANK ROSSI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19354

HI WEB, I'm not going to get into a discussion about Lauterbur or the rest . What I do know is the Cancer Detection Patent is the First Patent . This Patent was one of the Patents GE infringed on . And they paid on . Period . And so are the rest . So Dr. D.'s technology was stolen . As I said this was NOT determined by Scientists, Radiologists or Big Business . It was decided by the Supreme Court Of The United Stated. DO you think that if anyone else was first Fonar could have beat GE ? I think you knew what I was talking about Fonar vs GE and you decided to through up a smoke screen . That's OK . Someone will explain it to you better then I. One Question I have for you If all these people were ahead of Dr. D. or that patent doesn't mean anything then why weren't they at the trial saying so . I didn't read that they were did you ? Don't you think GE would have wanted them there instead of paying out 128 mill. What do you think? As far as how much Fonar has won or settled for so far look in the Other Income section of the 10K you will get a general idea. And if you think this is it guess again. Fonar right now is in talks with 3 other infringers and there are more. So Fonar will have plenty more coming in in the years ahead . Enough to continue to build the co. And guess what IF Fonar invents the OR 360 that works do you think someone may [ Borrow / Steal ] that technology ? YOU WILL BE SURPRISED . That's all I have to say . Dr. Damadian with money . WATCH OUT. YOUR THOUGHTS FRANK

To: WebDrone who wrote (10610)	8/4/1998 9:45:00 PM
From: James L. Fleckenstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19354

Webdrone or SpinShooter, I remain confused about this patent stuff. I understand that there is a patent court where patent infringement suits are fought. What I don't get is how it is that the suit of Fonar vs GE was fought in a civil court. And if it wasn't about infringement, what was it about? I guess you can have infringement suits in civil OR patent court, eh? This is all very confusing to my poor little pea brain. Thanks!