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 (10729)	8/7/1998 12:01:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 19354

WebDrone, what I quoted was the GE version, a bad copy of the original (VBG). Zeev

To: WebDrone who wrote (10729)	8/7/1998 1:32:00 AM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

Webdrone, That is a funny retort. Speaking of recent quotes: "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...." As you believe that one's "submission of incorrect information" might eventually "get your SI priveleges bounced", perhaps you might help me understand something: After visiting the US Patent Site (See some of my earlier posts), Summary Databases on Patent Decisions, and an online transcript of the Circuit Court decision of FONR Vs GE, I see: 1. No special "Patent Court" other than normal "procedure of the Federal courts" 2. Clear reference to GE infringement of two Fonar patents, * 3. Identification of the two patents that were infringed. U.S. Patent 4,871,966 and U.S.Patent 3,789,832. 4. All easily to be found in the public record. So how did you come to such curious beliefs? Michael * including what seems to be the earliest known patent regarding the use of NMR imaging, which in the opinion of the court "concerns a technique for using NMR imaging to detect cancer. MRI machines rely upon the principles of NMR to produce cross-sectional images of body tissue."