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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (62816)	8/20/1998 2:37:00 AM
From: Jeff Fox	Respond to of 186894

Paul,re: "Bipolar" I think you are yet once again dealing with bipolar disorder. Jeff

To: Paul Engel who wrote (62816)	8/20/1998 3:02:00 AM
From: IanBruce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Ian - Your Bipolar DRIVEL. Exponential WAS a COMPLETE FAILURE. Never sold one CPU. Completely irrelevant to a patent or IP issue -- and since your name appears on two Intel patents, you should know it too. Patents only cost about $2000 per copy. Also irrelevant. I don't think you're giving the people here much credit Paul. Filing a patent application may cost $2,000 (at a minimum) -- that's hardly the same thing as the 18 to 36 month process of having one submitted, reviewed by an examiner, queried, ammended, re-submitted, re-reviewed, and (maybe) issued. You make it sound like a trip to Kinko's. Did you ever stop to think that Intel may have a patent or two in their portfolio? I'm sure they do (two of them appear to be yours). But if their filing date is subsequent to Exponential's filing, they're simply worthless. Patent Law 101. If they're supersceded by prior art, they're revoked. That's the point. By the way - to further illustrate your DRIVEL, Intel dropped the Bipolar part of their process in early 1997. Fine. Then please explain the following quote from C-Net's own reports on the subject. To wit: Exponential filed for its various patents first, however, giving those plans status as "prior art" over the Merced patents. With this designation, the Exponential patents can theoretically supersede Intel's patents... <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18791,00.html> Since you yourself don't seem to provide any verifiable evidence to support your own position on this subject, and appear to deliberately obfuscate fact, your credibility -- in my opinion -- is already questionable. Still, I'd appreciate a direct answer. Assuming of course, you have one. Ian Bruce New York, NY

To: Paul Engel who wrote (62816)	8/20/1998 7:08:00 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul: Patents only cost about $2000 per copy. Filling a normal patent can run anywhere from $500-$1000. One should hire a Patent Attorney to write the specification and draft the claims. That can run anywhere from $2000-5000. Next, amendments. Assuming that there is one action, an amendment will cost the applicant $1000. If it is not submitted within 3 months, that can cost an additional $110-$700. Next assume that it is allowed. The Issue fee usually costs the filing fee, add another 500-1000. Then maintenance fees down the road (you want to enforce it) several thousand dollars. A Patent, if issued, will cost the applicant at least $2000 (if they don't use an attorney) and at least $4000 if they use an attorney. But, the probablility of the low end is pretty low. dave

To: Paul Engel who wrote (62816)	8/22/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul, <Exponential WAS a COMPLETE FAILURE. Never sold one CPU.> How about another spin on the subject of Merced and EXP patents? This variant apparently has escaped your attention: Intel did not proceed in obtaining the patents not because they are not essential for the project (product), but because the whole idea of a dual-instruction CPU appeared to be a failure by itself. "Exponential CPUs" were the evidence, as you mentioned yourself. Another evidence is the delays in Merced, and advances in McKinley (or whatever). Therefore, your statement <Merced will be pure CMOS> is highly questionable, but not in the CMOS or BiCMOS part. Will it ever be, that is the question. Happy woodworking.