SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ellen who wrote (1664)8/25/1998 6:46:00 PM
From: X Y Zebra  Respond to of 26163
 
The patents would be awarded to the person (inventor) and not to the company. Isn't that correct?

Or have a record of them, so they can be verifyable.....



To: Ellen who wrote (1664)8/25/1998 10:29:00 PM
From: bmart  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 26163
 
Ms. Ellen,
WE know from the Bloomberg piece our Mr. tonto researches stocks 10 hours a day, yet he used a 1995 filing disclosing AZNT owned no patents. In 1995 the patents belonged to Dr. Lorrichio. They became AZNT's in 1997.
We have two choices Ms. Ellen, Mr. tonto's diligence is very poor, or, he was aware that what he posted was incorrect.

RB



To: Ellen who wrote (1664)8/26/1998 7:42:00 AM
From: tonto  Respond to of 26163
 
Ellen, it all depends on how the patent is filed. In the case of the doctor, they could originally be in his name. That is not disputed.

If one works for Quaker Oats and creates a patentable product, it is issued in the name of Quaker Oats, and not the individual. The same is observed more and more at Universities...

Do you know what the patents represent?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News