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: FRANK ROSSI who wrote (10615)	8/1/1998 12:35:00 AM
From: SpinShooter	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 19354

I followed that "infringement" action also, as I had been asked (in ancient time) to be backup scientific-consultant in the ancient mid 1980's when FONAR attempted their first infringement action ... against Technicare / Johnson&Johnson, but had the case dismissed (with warnings)in the Patent Court, due to invalid claims. You will find last year's action was NOT a Patent Court suit for declaration of infringement and damages, but a "damages trial" before a non-technically aware civil-court jury, against GE. FONAR got that favorable jury decision, and large award judgement, but the trial judge threw out most of the awarded money ... as he noted that the original Patent gave no valid method for performing MRI or measuring local MR signals in-vivo. That is .. he said GE was not even practicing FONAR patent methods, or even close to them, and so should not pay those damages. MAO scaning is something else altogether - a software development. This later "Supreme Court" thing was not about patents, and this is the first I have heard it was in the Supreme Court! It as an appeal action by FONAR to fight the judge's decision to set aside the jury-awarded "damages" on cause. The Appeals Court found for FONAR, and said a Trial Judge in a civil suit cannot set aside a jury award. It was never about "first patent", or who "invented a technique". It was about Jury decisions, and if a trial judge can dismiss jury award. I think it was very clever of FONAR to avoid Patent Court on this second attempt (a decade later), and take the case into civil court for trial by jury, where their lawyers could control venue and juror selection. Sure did work better than in 1986! Which makes me wonder. If the awarded monies were, in fact, based on jury awards pertaining to that early "Cancer Detection" patent ... then it would be Dr. Damadian's personal money to keep, not FONAR's. I just looked up Dr. D patents at "patents.womplex.ibm.com" (use that URL and Search on "Damadian"), the IBM patent database. I saw the 1974 patent was never assigned to FONAR Corp, but remained personal property. Will he turn money over to FONAR for company development? Also I saw with some surprise, that the Patents covering the original FONAR MRI scan technology do not begin until after 1980. There seem to be four of them, counting Reissue modifications. So I would say that there definitely ARE patents on the FONAR-scan method (FONAR Inc did not use "FONAR technology" after 1983, however)and they seem to have been skillfully taken through the patent examination process very thoroughly and for a LONG time (almost to 1990) ... probably to avoid infringements on the Abe, Tanaka, et al's 1976-77 orginal patent for "sweet spot" signal localization method, later renamed "FONAR" when the remarkable scanner called Indomitable was constructed later in 77 according to the Abe, Tanaka, et al. Quite a creditable job! But, in the final say, Dr. Raymond Damadian's unique contributions for the past thirty years are remarkable. I believe you do absolutely have that right dead-on-target. Damadian also got some money from GE and from others, and FONAR Corp is trying to start up again. He is an outstanding fellow on anybody's way of rankin it. So, can FONAR do what they are trying to do? Oh yes ... I think they surely can and will! Caio, SpinShooter