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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Microvision (MVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	3/31/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Jan Johnsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

As I recall, the language in the patents is intended to to be very broad in it's description. You might want to read George Galpin's very informative post that discusses this interesting issue that you raised. Message 6648417

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	3/31/1999 11:26:00 AM
From: icecreambug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

>>>First, scanning the photons will not be very helpful, you have to direct the stream of photons on the retina. You also want to sequentially (in time) scan the stream (beam) of photons to different parts of the retina to create the image. Photons are scanned and directed into the retina. I don't see why you see problem in the statement there. >>>Second, the claim as written is what we call "inoperative", it implies that a person having only one eye can perceive depth if you could just control the focus of the "scanned photons". Most people familiar with the art know that depth perception is created because two eyes view the same image from slightly different angles. You simply cannot create depth perception in a single eye. By putting VRD for both eyes and switching right and left images on and off 3D can be achieved. That's different from adding depth information for depth perception. If one VRD can give depth perception, I think it's very good. I see no problem there.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	3/31/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Humbly report, Zeev, let's assume you are 100% correct, and Microvision's patent protection sucks dog poop, though I'm pretty sure Casey Tegreene would disagree: prnewswire.com Let's also assume that the technology works. Well, no need to assume here, it's now the de facto standard as far as at least the navy is concerned: prnewswire.com So, humble question. If you were the a company that wanted what MVIS has, what would you do to get it? Humble thanks in advance! Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	3/31/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Humbly report, Zeev, I've received a lengthy answer to the post of yours to which I am responding, from Casey Tegreene, but have not yet obtained permission to post it. For now let me just say it did not cause me to negatively reevaluate my considerable (for my means) investment in MVIS/W. Quite the contrary. I'm posting this in case others have been shaken by what you've said. If I do receive permission to post the e-mail, I will. Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	4/1/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: Steven	Respond to of 7720

Artist create illusion of depth all the time by adjusting focus. Don't be so brazen. Steven

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	4/1/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Humbly report, Zeev, talked to Casey Tegreene on the phone a few minutes ago. I do not have permission to post his e-mail to me. He feels SI is not the place for company communications. If you want to know more, may I humbly direct you to Microvision? mailto:info@mvis.com Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)	4/7/1999 4:44:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Humble rewind, All, seems my "sloppy is as sloppy does" buddy Zeev has been way too quiet regarding his Heds up review of the patents. Zeev, bud, try this at home: The claim to which you refer highlights a certain aspect of vision relating to depth cues. The most commonly known depth cue is the one described by you and which is commonly referred to as "parallax." That is, the brain interprets the difference in input from the two eyes (e.g., convergence) to get an indication of depth. However, you fail to note that there are other vision responses that can be very important. The one highlighted by that patent claim, which you pooped on (see your note to which I am responding). is commonly called "accommodation." That is, a single eye has a depth response. (If you don't like the proof below, you could look up the general idea of accommodation: KINGSLAKE, II Applied Optics and Engineering, 15-17.) Humans can use this vision response for depth cues (e.g., so that a one eyed person can catch a ball). Here's how you can prove to yourself that accommodation exists. Face the wall and close one eye. Then, pull out your share of MVIS (or MVISW) and hold it between your open eye and the wall. Direct your focus at the share. Switch your focus to the wall. Repeat. You should see that you can differentiate between the different depths with a single eye. Now for test number two. This one takes a little practice, since you are obviously not used to operating without parallax. Close one eye. Take a small object (e.g., a MVIS/W share crumbled into a ball) and toss it a foot or so in the air and catch it. Repeat, but not straight up. Instead make it come down a little bit away from you or a little bit closer to you. As you practice, you'll get pretty good at judging the distance with a single eye. Thusly, you have proved to yourself that the pretense for calling the claim "inoperative" is itself inoperative. To paraphrase, "You CAN simply create depth perception in a single eye." Duh. Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com P.S. Dat's why one eyed people drive, Zeev. P.P.S. Fu¢k yes it's form Full Metal Jacket, V., for a reason! ;-)