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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5246)	11/17/1998 6:07:00 PM
From: Dennis V.	Respond to of 27311

Hi Zeev, I was wondering if anyone else felt that Lev's patent claims contained a bit of fluff. Seems like some of the filings could be "worked around". I do suspect however, that there is substance, not just braggadocio, in his claim that "revolutionary" stuff is in the works. Due to lag time in obtaining patents and paperwork still in house, there is a large blind spot. It comes down to "what do you think?". There are clues, however. Those have been discussed on this board and thats where it stands as far as I know.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5246)	11/17/1998 6:13:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Zeev, I just noticed your post. I understand Valence has 207 approved patents. Since you have found only 110 of them and have concluded <<many of these patents are not particularly strong>>, perhaps you are not looking in all the right places. There has also been recent discussion about other Bellcore licensees. Are you aware of any Licensee other than Valence that Bellcore owns stock in? If Bellcore acquired 1.5 million shares of Valence but didn't bother with any of the others, could it mean that mean that Bellcore was most impressed with Valence and therefore placed their bet on the horse they believed would win? I hope you can find those other 93 patents to read through. CEO Lev Dawson recently stated that any competitor will have trouble mass producing a similar battery without stepping on one of Valence's patents. It's a fairly strong statement and I would assume he knows what he is talking about or he could get sued. Since you are a newcomer, I would expect you have a lot of studying yet to do. Let us know what you find on the other 93 patents. I am sure you would agree that It helps to play with the full deck, especially when you are posting "professional" opinions on the internet.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5246)	11/17/1998 6:16:00 PM
From: Herb Blair	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

Could you list some of your credentials so we could judge the basis for the last statements. Also I don't believe anyone but valence knows their present technology used in the battery production. Therefore how can anyone be able to tell which patents are pertinent. Isn't it possible that the patents were developed through a lengthy trial and error process and also relevant to production? Finally I thought you were interested in valence because of the floorless convertibles. When did you become a patent and an electrochemical expert? I'm extremely suspicious of you two guys.You couch your questions in a way that casts doubt on valence. It would sound better if you had said, " I looked at the patents and can't tell which provide a strong intellectual property position. Can someone help me?"

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5246)	11/17/1998 6:37:00 PM
From: Pronichev	Respond to of 27311

Zeev start with the most recent and go backwards..There are two just pulished on Oct 20th 98 and I think one after that. Can someone give the rerences to Zeev please I'm home now and the files are at my office. Michael

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5246)	11/18/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: Pronichev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi Zeev 2 patents: US 5778515 Publication date July 14, 1998 and US 5824120 Publication date Oct. 20th 1998 Applicants on both are Valence I have at least 2 more recent ones, will post today I hope. Best Regards Michael