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: Glenn Olsen who wrote (10756)	8/8/1998 4:03:00 PM
From: BBurrows	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

Look, why can't you just drop it? I'm not the one who attacked your post, you came on attacking me so why do you want to persist in showing everyone how completely lame you are? Post on-topic or don't post at all.

To: Glenn Olsen who wrote (10756)	8/8/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19354

Glenn, I don't know Burrows but I do know what prompted his scathing attack on Spinshooter (and then, in his own defense, Webdrone). Claims such as these from Spinshooter: "This later "Supreme Court" thing was not about patents" "The Appeals Court found for FONAR, and said a Trial Judge in a civil suit cannot set aside a jury award. It was never about "first patent", or who "invented a technique". It was about Jury decisions, and if a trial judge can dismiss jury award" And Webdrone shouting: "THIS WAS A CIVIL CASE, not a PATENT case in PATENT COURT." "If this was a PATENT CASE (it's not), it is a matter of public record which claims were infringed on." These are apparent distortions of the official record and these two have provided no sources to substantiate their interesting conclusions. Instead of continuing your ridicule of Burrows, why don't you offer to refute some his original arguments? Michael