SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : CYRIX / NSM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: kash johal who wrote (32646)6/4/1999 9:24:00 PM
From: Dan B.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 33344
 
kash, you are entitled to your opinion- or is it simply the truth the Mead "never laid down any such rules?" Lacking evidence to steer me to the contrary, I have to suspect you are selling Mr. Meads work substantially short. Reading your estimation, one has to wonder why and how those textbooks ever came to be used ever at all. Edison was one of those guys who spent a lot on ideas that never seemed to work- but he put a lot of perspiration into it. I wonder if that MIT Lemuelson invention award of $500,000 Mead just got commonly is awarded in recognition of a lot of useless work that never panned out? Why is he with Intel now? Calling Foveon crap won't make it so if it isn't, and there is no sign I've seen that it is- certainly not anything in the false guff about lenses being no better than 800 speed film(hence better film ala Foveon couldn't help, LOL). It seems the former head of Kodaks Professional equipment division is the right sort of guy for the job- but only time will tell about a market cap when and if they go public- even your estimation of that is without basis today. It's hard to tell what a potential 40 some patents would do to would-be competitors- that's quite a few! For the record, it sounds like Mead might not be sure himself- or is he kidding us? It does seems clear that patents can be quite a roadblock to competition as well as a path to licensing revenues.