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: BBurrows who wrote (10631)	8/2/1998 8:31:00 AM
From: Glenn Olsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

New posters give us old timers the opportunity to repost our same untainted by fresh thought views for the umpteenth time with some slight delusion that we are providing a service to the thread. As I put down my crumbled AARP card and clean up my drool from the keyboard I do tend to wonder what prompts you to enter a party unintroduced and shouting your opinions for all to hear? A post at 1:29 am (way past my bed time) might suggest that the evening's activities had awakened a burning desire to rectify the misinformation disseminated on this thread by other misguided investors. Or was a deep sleep broken by a dream guiding you along this path? I've noticed a pretty fair correlation between the emotional component of posts to the time of day. Curious as to your thoughts as dawn breaks across the land. Glenn

To: BBurrows who wrote (10631)	8/2/1998 11:47:00 AM
From: James L. Fleckenstein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

I like the healthy aspects of this debate about the early days of Fonar. Few people could have recalled the momentous occasion of Fonar's inital unveiling and so SpinShooter's recounting is quite informative and interesting. Not to say that (s)he isn't biased. We all are, including you and me. So was Pliny, but what are you going to do? Delete history? I liked your post except the accusation of LYING. Even if something somebody says is incorrect, doesn't mean it was told with the purpose of misleading. I do agree with you that referring to "half" the settlement rebuked by the judge as "most" is misleading and that failure to point out that this was later overturned is misleading. Maybe SpinShooter has a bias. So do you. That's ok. At a certain point, one must wonder why all these people from diverse backgrounds have some misgivings about Fonar/Dr.D. It is far too one-sided, paranoid and conspiratorial to suggest this is all evil-empire stuff, IMO. As I said, I came to my early more negative views of fonar due to huge marketing flops of Fonar and (perhaps) wrongly assigned these to Dr D. That was at a time when I had little respect for GE too. The newer activities of the company are what is of interest here. A valid point for Fonar from SS's view is that they need to wrestle with the notion of whether they want to be known as the NEW IMPROVED FONAR, or the same old fonar with new tricks. I think the collective wisdom would be to go with the former choice. Thanks for taking the time to outline your dissention with SS.

To: BBurrows who wrote (10631)	8/2/1998 1:57:00 PM
From: WebDrone	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 19354

Burrows, pot calling the kettle black! You said -<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> THIS WAS A CIVIL CASE, not a PATENT case in PATENT COURT. Spin shooter is asking which claims were infringed on. If this was a PATENT CASE (it's not), it is a matter of public record which claims were infringed on. You should be prepared to back up your serious claim that someone is lying with a citation to the patent court case number. Since you are incorrect, you can not. It was a CIVIL case. I am warning you, this is not Yahoo! Your rude accusations against another poster (trial or permanent) could get your SI priveleges bounced, let alone your own submission of incorrect information. But, I notice this is your FIRST and ONLY post on SI, so your claims are not only baseless, but your motivation is suspicious as well. Some new members are working towards those 10 excellent posts that will win them a free SI membership, and some new members are just not worth the bandwidth. Patti- it's a real stretch to say Fonar has the first MRI patent. A real stretch. As we are trying to be informed investors, let's not dwell on marketing hyperbole. It's of no material consequence if Fonar had the first or 117th patent-- what matters is that they may have gotten a big chunk of green that they can use to grow the company. How much, when, and for what- these are the big issues! Spin Shooter- Hi! I'll send you a private message. I WAS one of the guys in the UW "temporary" building (temporary for 40 years and going strong!) Good posts! Can anyone tell me when the next earnings are released? WebDrone

To: BBurrows who wrote (10631)	8/2/1998 6:47:00 PM
From: SpinShooter	Respond to of 19354

BBurrows: on rewriting history? Actually I am sure you would be surprised how very much non-GE I am, and how pro-Damadian I always have been. Also my own income is 75% from my own consulting business, some of it in patent work; I am not a "medical" person as you suppose. However, you agree with me that restoring the jury award was NOT determined by the Supreme Court. If what you say is true, that the suit was truly about Patent Infringement, and you are as intimately acquainted as you indicate, then you can easily prove that I am being dishonest in what I wrote: simply tell us the Patent numbers in question, and write which specific Claim numbers within them GE was found guilty of infringing? One infringes particular invention/patent claims, not actually an entire patent document. Neither the patent cover page itself, when I looked it up the other day, nor the summary HTML in the IBM-Database listings gave any assignment of the patent rights to FONAR. When one looks at other MR related patents of the era, up to modern times, e.g., Garroway ... Mansfield, or Abe, Tanaka, Inoue, Ima, or Ernst, Kumar, et al, or any large number of Ian Young MRI patents, the assignement of the patent rights to some company to some grantor institution is always prominently stated in the database record. I am sorry, but for the Damadian patents in question here there are no assignments listed. Perhaps there was an informal, non Patent Office, civil assignement done in Melville LI? Maybe the Cancer Detection patent already had expired. That might be true, I suppose. So I am still asking whether the FONAR suit was brought in Patent Court, before a PTO Judge, or was it a suit for damages taken before a jury of civilians in civil court. Which of those or something else altogether? I said "most" because I read that the two awards were 60mil and 120mil, and the latter was originally disallowed by the trial judge. I think that was in "current news" on the ISMR (International Society of Magnetic Resonace) internet site in 1997 sometime. You are simply wrong about patent cases being determined only in a court by "jury of our peers". What you mean "our"? The 1980s case taken by FONAR (highly unsuccessfully) against Johnson&Johnson was NOT a jury trial, for example. I note with interest that you fail to mention that previous case. But, again, these pick up only on points of historical interest. Why would anyone actually care at this late date? FONAR does have cash on the books, and we all want to know what they plan to do with "where it is going in '98" When did FONAR first become incorporated? When did they abandon the FONAR-scanner technology in favor of gradient Fourier encoded MRI sytems? I see it so strongly in their best corporate interests to distance themselves as far from the events and technology of the 1970's as they can, if they want to head into the 2000's with any chance of success. There is something else "going on in '98", to explain this obsessive need to justify an old, dead, 1970s patent document.