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: Michelino who wrote (10626)	8/1/1998 7:13:00 PM
From: Patricia L. Clews	Respond to of 19354

But to be fair to all, remember there were interviews with Dr. Damadian asking him why he wouldn't just keep the money all for himself & that leads me to believe he could have. That interview I'm thinking of was in a newspaper or magazine. Good for Fonar that Dr. D wants to grow a company! Patti

To: Michelino who wrote (10626)	8/1/1998 11:32:00 PM
From: SpinShooter	Respond to of 19354

Hi Michelino! YES! You do voice exactly my basic point. It was indeed "FONAR" who sued, not Dr. Damadian. FONAR Corp sued about something, but only that FONAR news-release interpretation says it was actually for infringement. Patents are only loosely (for short) said to be "infringed", or, at an earlier stage, "subject to interference", but really it is all about the Claims: infringement is strictly on specific legal claims, formally written, and presented in the patent document itself. Which patent number, and which numbered-claims, were found to be "infringed"? In other words, one never infringes on a "Patent" but only specific legal/technical claims that are written in the final document sections. NOTHING in the news gives that crucial information; at least I could find nothing. So since FONAR Corp brought suit, then it could not actually be about any invention claims infringements with regard to Dr. Damadians 1974 patent on Cancer Detection by NMR Relaxation Time Measurements, because (1) FONAR Corp does not "own" that patent --- I have also never heard that Damadian later licensed his patent to FONAR, either -- and (2) USPTO 3,789,832 gives 16 completely separate invention Claims ... which ones were infringed by GE? None of them, that is the answer. This was established a decade ago in Damadian's failed Johnson and Johnson Patent Court Infringement action. No, this time the Court and damages award to FONAR could not be for that patent owned personally by Dr. Damadian, which had no valid Claims pertinent to an MRI scanner. More puzzling, it is not very much in FONAR's future interests to imply that the award was ABOUT Damadian's 1974 "Cancer Detection" patent. Their upcoming new product ideas have nothing to do with cancer diagnosis or detection. Michelino, did you look up 3,789,832, at "patent.ibm.com" and read its basic non-technical sections, e.g., the critical patent abstract? The "Cancer Detection" abstract states <quote> "An apparatus and method in which a tissue sample is positioned in nuclear induction apparatus, whereby selected nuclei are energized to higher energy states from their equilibrium states, through n. m. r. [<So far this just states that NMR is used on tissue sample, hardly novel>]. By measuring the spin-lattice relaxation time and the spin-spin relaxation time, and then comparing these relaxation times with their respective value for known normal and malignant tissue, an indication of the presence and degree of malignancy of the cancerous tissue can be obtained." <end quote> [<this indication of presence and degree malignancy was later found to be scientifically untrue in general>. Now where is some MR "image" or even a crude in-vivo workable localized scan method described? It isn't. The patent abstract itself says the invention is about "tissue samples", specimens placed in a NMR spectrometer. The GE system, and everyone else's MRI, does not do any of that kind of relaxation times, T1 and T2, measurement and comparisons against normal/malignant standards. You tell me -- I am stuck at this point. What parts in the above abstract of Damadian's 1974 issued patent were "stolen" by GE and other "Infringers"? We all here are sounding off on the wrong trail, it seems to me. And that is probably a very strong hint at FONAR's true targets. Damadian/FONAR have to have something going on that is more solid -- specific to MR-Imaging -- maybe it is something entirely apart from FONAR's corporate future. SpinShooter

To: Michelino who wrote (10626)	8/2/1998 12:49:00 AM
From: SpinShooter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19354

About paying attention to FONAR press releases? Do you mean to say that you actually believe what companies promise, unsubstantiated, in their press releases. Unfortunately, I am so ancient and rickity in the medical devices business and patent law stuff, that I recall the very first "FONAR" press release and Demo. It was a huge fiasco, with Dr. Damadian needing to retract a whole lot of "what we are doing" kind of press release statements. Reporters from the New York area had been invited to a big newly-born-FONAR demonstration, and according to the stories in the paper the next day (must have been in 1977, this time of year) FONAR got caught red-faced,faking the MR pictures and data they said they were scanning real time for the assembled newsmen, and other technically interested types. What I am saying is that, as historical fact, FONAR has an especially bad reputation for credibility of its PR output. Just cause a PR says so, that means only that is what FONAR wants to be the accepted "tale", not that it is true. What I don't comprehend is why FONAR wants to tie itself to the albatross of its old, ong abandoned, "sweet spot" mechanical scanner, the FONAR method in Damadian's 1982-1988 issued patents. For example, the PR stories regularly lead readers, on the contrary, to infer that the FONAR-scanner is from the original "CAncer" patent filed in 1972. Not so. The 1972 filing has no valid scanner claims, which is why the later patent work, 82-88, was carried out I guess. But FONAR Corp was not the entity pursuing those patents. I am thorougly beflummoxed by the whole thing! Now the future for the Corporation is to move ahead into modern niches, isn't it? Why get identified closely with obsolete, questionable technology?