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 : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl Hindman who wrote (44)	11/13/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 626

Really? You say they have to do things the way you expect or the way you require. Someone sitting in the catbird seat doesn't have to do that. If you have a product with a lot of potential, but still has some bugs to work out, you don't proceed the way you suggest. Many do and become hostage to large concerns who effectively quash the product because they can't factor conveniently its development into their existing product lines. This is called preemption by life cycle engineering. The only reason we don't hear about these quashes is that other technologies come along and supersede the advantages promised by the quashed. If you have a product that you believe needs improvement, to get involved with a quasher for the cash payoff, is not worth it. There have been many incidents of this nature over the 20th century and learning from what has gone on means to not do what the establishment wants. SR is putting up a trial balloon in a cagey manner. I don't see anything negative about that especially in light of the repugnant behavior of exploiters. The web site presentation was written by someone who is not very technical. Why is that so unusual? First tries are often poor. Telling specialists prematurely too much about an innovation invites formal back engineering. I wouldn't tell you diddly. Who needs your company? If they have what they claim, you need them. You got your priorities mixed up. Tell me, if they did what they claimed in their demo, where else can you find something that will match it? You might be able to reproduce the same in a special laboratory where the costs are sky high, but not anywhere near the order lower costs relative to existing products that SR claims. The fact that your company won't look any further proves a complete failure in scientific objectivity. Your company can't afford to do that. They have to chase this thing down even if it is a complete bust because it threatens much of the existing antiquating infrastructure. Who wants to talk to technologists? That kind of promotion is the way you claim SR is using to pursue investment managers. A company looking for venture capital doesn't proceed in the way SR has. Companies looking for venture capital are mostly in a far more primitive state of development and usually have no identifiable products. This company is attempting to sell its products and isn't attempting to sell stock. I don't know what your company is, but I'll bet they didn't proceed in the way SR has. They diluted their long term interest by selling the store. Your comments are reminiscent of the private responses I got. They were only interested in attacking me. I was trying to informally back engineer what they presumably created. I made the possibly false assumption that they have a viable technology. First you try to build it, then you try to critique it. In trying to build it, I found that there is enough to warrant further investigation. All you have done is to say that if something isn't visible, it isn't there. I guess you think you are some kind of scientist, but what you are really practicing is religion. I have a suggestion that will go against your truth, light, and way, but it behooves you and others to follow it. Why not buy one of the company's products and see if it lives up to expectations? Even if it doesn't, you might learn plenty of value. You might learn not only what helps your company, but also you might develop the conviction that many of the swaggering networkers are about to meet their deconstructor in which case you could make a fortune on the short side especially in light of the grandiose expectations built into those holy cows.

To: Carl Hindman who wrote (44)	11/14/1998 8:46:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

>>>>>The level of (non)disclosure on their website is ludicrous. They offer no explanation whatever<<<<< Carl, could be for a good reason: >>>>>SilkRoad's SRSC technology was developed by the Company's Chairman and Chief Technical Officer, Dr. James R. Palmer, JD, PhD. The U.S Patent Office confirmed acceptance on October 6, 1998 of SilkRoad's initial application covering 52 claims. Additional patents are pending.<<<<< (from Post #1) Patent claims are confidential until the USPTO approves and then publishes. During application process frequently the application is amended to respond to examiner's objections, add new claims, and so on. Until the patent is granted, better play it close to the vest. CobaltBlue