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 (2389)	4/8/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: Razorbak	Respond to of 7720

Well, I'm still confused, so I thought it merited "cluttering up the thread". In fact, I'm still confused even after reading your response. I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't understand how the "UFO" analogy is relevant. Perhaps you can go back to my specific question and answer that? Thanks in advance. Razor

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2389)	4/8/1999 12:45:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Respond to of 7720

Humbly report, Zeev, here's a simple analogy that you can extend at your own humble risk: A claim to a car with three wheels also covers a car with four wheels because a four wheel car has three wheels - plus an additional wheel. This means that, in a binocular system, the accommodation cues can be matched to the parallax cues. Talk to some people who have been in simulators or jets about disorientation effects of conflicting cues (e.g., inner ear cues conflicting with vision cues), and you'll figure out that the claimed system just might be useful in reducing cue conflicts in a binocular system, as well as providing depth cues in a single eye system. There are obviously many other aspects of this concept that are helpful. Use your imagination. You somehow try to imply, as in your first post, that the system won't work because "you have to direct the stream of photons on the retina." Look, the system shown in the patent shows precisely how the light from the light source travels from the light source to the scanner to the eye. The scanner redirects light along various scan paths that enter the eye and strike the retina. In accordance with this, the claim specifically says "photons being scanned directly onto the retina." The claim does not say that scanning can't be used in conjunction with directing. (Three wheeled car, remember?) In any event, this "inoperative" system has been shown to operate on many occasions. Ask the Navy, or Boeing. Keep in mind, already, that this claim is a single, small piece of an overall IP portfolio, and provides very little insight into the company's overall IP position, which is in a constant state of updating. From what I've heard, several reputable companies have analyzed Microvision's IP portfolio, including the one in question prepared by the McAndrews firm in Chicago, a firm that is well-respected in the patent community, and the attorney who prepared this application, who is very competent, conscientious, and bright. None have referred to the overall portfolio of issued patents and pending applications or those that prepared them as "sloppy" - except you. Elementary? Hardly, Sherlock! Cheers, Svejk proofsheet.com