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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (5267)	11/17/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: FMK	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, I do believe Lev's "stepping on patents" statement. I don't feel obligated to defend it. If Zeev is evaluating Valence for the purpose of making an investment decision, I believe it would be in his best interest to act soon. I have no reason to question the post of Midwest Patents. He was probably hired by someone checking out Valence before they invested. A phony wouldn't have been so fluent in 1x, 3x damages etc. I'm sorry to hear you sold out after the conference call. There's always a risk of being left behind if you jump in and out at the wrong time. I still think its a good entry point at present levels if you look again at the production numbers just from line 1 alone. Time to watch Jesse Ventura, Minnesota's new Governor, on the Tonight show!

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (5267)	11/18/1998 12:07:00 AM
From: wm sharp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Well, Larry, I looked over that post from Herbert and, by golly, there's nothing I'd call "ridicule" in there. Herbert simply makes the point that Valence personnel are the most qualified to assess the patents. As you know, the CEO has done just that in a conference call - the same CEO who has quickly built a reputation for his cruel understatement. Extracting a bullish comment from Lev Dawson in a CC is like pulling teeth. Furthermore, weren't you one of the more vocal critics of Dawson's tight-lipped approach to the last call? If so, which is it? Do you value his insight or don't you? What is (selectively, I guess) wrong with his clear statement in an earlier call about Valence's patent strength? I also read Zeev's post about his review of 40 abstracts pertaining to Valence patents. I also read the quick conclusion he drew from this valiant effort, noting the absence of supporting evidence for his conclusion. The post contained little substantive information - a criticism I see you toss (selectively, I guess) at the FMK link. Please be aware that I do value Zeev's contributions to the thread in areas of impartial technical expertise. But the problem I'm having is that I also read you guys as rather opportunistic. (And, for the record, I was one of the recipients of Zeev's "prospectus" that stirred up some controversy with SI awhile back. I personally didn't mind receiving it; I just viewed it as rather, er, opportunistic.) In that regard, how do you currently assess the Valence "trading dream"? Message 6146507