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 (10743)	8/8/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: Michelino	Respond to of 19354

Webdroner, Most of us, even those of us with scientific training, are ordinary citizens. I'm sure that your assumption that all members of juries are technically inept is just one of the accusations with little evidence behind them. Fonar's case, (a traditional patent case ), has very little in common with the government's action against Microsoft's. Even so, Microsoft attempted to produce evidence of bias on the part of special master Lessig. Would the question of impartiality have been raised in a jury trial? In fact, Fonar's choice of a jury trial for the initial phase is open to all who decide to sue in defense of patents in New York. Regardless, in two separate subsequent actions, higher courts perused the technical details of this case, reviewed expert testimony and additional supportive material and made clear (and understandable) decisions on the side of Fonar's claims. GE lost because it infringed on Fonar's patents. There is no alternative 'patent court'. If you and Spinshooter continue to doubt this, well, you might try a little research: I've provided the links above. Regardless of your lack of acknowledgement of any debt to Dr. Damadian, if during the life of this patent, any machine used " 1. A method for detecting cancer comprising: a. measuring and establishing standard NMR spin- lattice relaxation times and spin-spin relaxation times for both normal and cancerous tissue of the type under analysis using as an indictor nuclei at least one nuclei which exhibits deviant behavior in cancerous tissue; b. measuring the NMR spin-lattice relaxation times and spin-spin relaxation times for the suspected tissue to determine the extent of deviant behavior of the indicator nuclei; and c. comparing the values obtained in (b) against the standards obtained in (a)." then Fonar would have a case against the manufacturer. It's no wonder that you have repeated difficulty accepting the simple facts regarding GE's infringing on Fonar's patents. Along with your profile's declaration that "Fonar stinks", you've shown you have little respect for juries, lawyers, the court system and even the possible vindication of the claims of the patentee. In fact, you've implied Fonar would be a better company 'if they "took" GE for the $130Million with a baseless case!' instead of winning on the merits of patent law. You also ask: "What does it matter to you? I will tell you this, I would have hoped that Fonar would have done a share buy-back...to give a little equity back to the shareholders..." I'm no fan of this technique although my belief may put me in the minority. I hold that buy-backs result in no gain for shareholders' equity as the company depletes its cash holdings at the expense of increasing the amount of shares in the treasury. Of course, such buy-back action might lead to a symbolic increase in share price; If I were a trader looking to capitalize on a pop in price it might be attractive. But as a long term investment, I look forward to Fonar increasing shareholders' equity by the most preferable of methods: growing sales (and profits) of an increasingly diverse set of products. Michael