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: DStandish who wrote (6483)	12/30/1998 3:31:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 27311

D. Standish, I have two admissions. 1. While I am not a lawyer, I like to argue. When my posts raising legitimate questions are met with patronizing responses, I have replied in an equally argumentative fashion. As Zeev pointed out, the personal attacks are not useful and I will try to refrain and I have aplogized. 2. I am a skeptic. My investments in my "play money" account are all in high risk, potentially-high reward, speculative stocks. 99% of the "pie in the sky" stocks out there fail. Sketpcism is a healthy characteristic when dabbling in such stocks. I see FMK's "blind faith" toward this stock as, in general, a recipe for disaster. As far as raising the potential pitfalls of the stock, I ask are not these worth knowing? You may be well-versed on the pitfalls of floorless finacing but I would submit that not all who read these threads are. I have received private messages from lurkers on this thread to attest to that fact. I would also guess that even a sophisticated investor such as yourself has a better idea of VLNC's status of production following the discussion here over the past week.

To: DStandish who wrote (6483)	12/30/1998 4:50:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 27311

Dstandish, your summary, while incomplete is very good, except i erred in: "Valence's patents may not be as good as they look." , The five patents that Paul suggested I look at are actually very good, particularly #5,834,136, since it contains claims to actual cells with a quite unique (and in a way possibly quite broad) polymer structure and cell structure. The other four are mostly "methods patents" indicative of intensive work to develop manufacturing techniques of high quality, but the latter, being "methods" patents are not as enforceable, IMHO, as the one where actual strong and broad cells are claimed. Mind you this is not an opinion as to validity, enforceability and possible prior art, after writing some 40 patents of my own, I developed a "knack" for seeing strength and weaknesses in patents, but I am not a Patent Attorney, and always leave to my Patent Attorneys the task of wording my own claims. Zeev