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 (5281)	11/18/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: John Curtis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hey, some interesting "conversation." My two-bits says it does not follow that because one has a patent portfolio that one can adjudicate the efficacy of another patent portfolio, eh? Now exactly WHAT did I say, heh! Simply put, that unless a person has detailed experience in the area the patents are applied against, in this case, battery technology and all its relevant permutations, then merely having the ability to ascertain the "patent applicability" issues is not enough to establish the merits of the details of said patents, no? So too as it relates to the merits of that same individuals evaluation. As for "guru" status…..LOL!!! All be suspect on threads such as this, and this is particularly true when individuals stay hidden by pseudonyms. Bottom Line, individual d.d. is a MUST. But keep up the chatter. The floor-less convertible issue was beaten into the ground, and now this patent "thang" appears to be having the same experience, too. Good stuff and it helps clear(maybe) the air. Heh! John~