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: SpinShooter who wrote (10618)	8/1/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: James L. Fleckenstein	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 19354

SpinShooter, your contributions and those of Webdrone are most welcome to this board, IMO. About 80% of the thousands of posts here consist of off-topic petty arguements. The technical and historical background you all provided has helped me understand issues about Fonar that I did not know and which is quite hard to dig up. Thanks to both of you. OH, BTW, you are right about Dave Terry being Dr. D's bro-in-law. In fact, the family content of the company has been the subject of some criticism, including my own. I am not sure that it qualifies as nepotism but I am not sure it doesn't. I guess if the company does well, who cares. If it flounders, then those caught on the downside of the equation point at everything "wrong" with the company to imagine solutions to the perceived problems.

To: SpinShooter who wrote (10618)	8/1/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 19354

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? The scope of this speculative pondering certainly rivals any hyperbole that regulars on this board have been accused of spouting. Perhaps if you viewed some of the press releases on Fonar's site (such as fonar.com ) you might agree that it was Fonar that sued G.E and Fonar that received the money. MELVILLE, NEW YORK - October 6, 1997 - FONAR Corporation (FONR-NASDAQ) reported today that the United States Supreme Court announced its decision to deny General Electric Company's certiorari petition (Case No. 97-230) in FONAR's patent infringement lawsuit. Previously, in May 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist denied GE's motion to stay the judgment pending its appeal to the Supreme Court and, as a result, GE paid FONAR $128.7 million in damages, including interest, for infringement of FONAR's Multi-Angle ObliqueT (MAO) and Cancer DetectionT patent. With the denial by the Supreme Court of GE's petition for a writ of certiorari today, GE has no further recourse and any remaining uncertainty as to FONAR's right to retain the full amount of the award has been eliminated.... You may have been following this, but were you paying attention? Michael

To: SpinShooter who wrote (10618)	8/2/1998 1:29:00 AM
From: BBurrows	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 19354

SpinShooter, Your posts re-interpreting the results of Fonar's very clear victory over GE for blatant patent infringement are completely false and outrageous! There are so many false statements that I tend to believe you must be associated with GE in some way or are one of the many disenchanted, dysfunctional medical people who dispise Fonar and Dr D. for simply protecting their intellectual property. To correct a few of your many misstatements, the patents in question have been assigned to Fonar Corp and as such, Fonar had the legal right to sue GE for infringement. You said: <<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.>> A COMPLETE LIE!!! This was a patent infringement lawsuit from START TO FINISH! WHEN the jury reached the decision that GE HAD infringed on Fonar's patents for Cancer detection and MAO, they THEN determined damages, damages based in part on what Fonar's sales WOULD have been had GE not stolen this intellectual property. BTW, this was the FOURTH largest award ever for patent infringement. Arguing that the jury was 'non-technically aware' in order to make it appear they reached a false decision is pretty good proof in my mind that not only are you REACHING, but that you have a very strong bias against Fonar AND THE FACTS which have ALREADY been determined. All patent cases are decided by the same 'system' as was used in this case, a jury of our peers. <<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.>> The district trial judge overturned PART of the decision (1 of 2 patents contested) in regards to Cancer detection and less than HALF of the resultant award money, not MOST! His decision was later overturned based on the facts of the case. <<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 not heard by the Supreme court. The Supreme court denied hearing the appeal because it is a well known fact that patent law is determined in the Federal courts. This is why the Supreme court rarely hears cases involving patent infringement. Furthermore, Fonar DID NOT appeal the district court ruling, as you claim. It was GE who appealed to the Federal court. Fonar filed a cross complaint. The Federal court did NOT reverse the district court judge because a 'trial judge in a civil suit cannot set aside a jury award'. A trial judge CAN and DOES set aside jury awards all the time as they are empowered to do. This was not the reason the Federal court gave for overturning the district judges decision. Read carefully: They overturned it because they determined that the original patent for Cancer Detection WAS INDEED INFRINGED UPON AND REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL JURY AWARD IN FULL!!!! Fonar's Cancer detection patent had to do with the WAY in which NMR is used to differentiate between tissues, such as between normal and cancerous tissue. It was this technique which was patented. It was upheld along with the patent for MAO. Your post is one of the more blatantly dishonest examples of trying to re-write the history of this PATENT INFRINGEMENT lawsuit that I've ever read. No amount of lying can change the fact that GE was found GUILTY on BOTH counts of patent infringement. That is what this case was about from start to finish.

To: SpinShooter who wrote (10618)	8/2/1998 7:49:00 AM
From: Glenn Olsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

SpinShooter I also enjoy the information brought to this thread by those with experience beyond just that of a current investment. I am confused by your statements on the 80's legal event. When I bought into Fonar several years ago I took the time to review the old NY Times stories on that prior case. Fonar "won" initially with the jury. That was the fall of 84 I think. The stock price moved to 8-9 (again best memory) Later, the trial judge (December or January) over ruled the jury on the basis that he had erred in some fashion which escapes me. Spring 86 the Appeals Court sided with the judge. Long time before Fonar finally did win something. Pretty amazing that Damadian's actions from 20 years ago continue to color how segments view him and the company. Objectively there can be little debate as to his contributions then and now to the technology but neither the investment community nor the medical one seems willing to overlook the accumulated side issues. Glenn