I refuse to post an online video link to George's 1 hour and 25 minute Funeral Mass Celebration but it is available, and yes you can pretty much guess who is who....or at least that is easy for me.

Charles, bring a few investors over from Yahoo so we can get a baseball game going, but first we need to take the knife that is buried in our back out before we put on a HDC uniform to advertise for them...cheap labor?

DigDeeper, OK, simply said read George's OBIT

Charles, what Mr. Fromholzer said ...My tenure as a director was one of the great experiences of my career and I look forward to watching the Company continue to move forward with SVM-RFE in the world of AI and in the development of identifying early stage diagnostics for common health issues.”

Understand that he states great experience of his career yet Marty different massively. Fromholzer was closer to George from those earlier corporations. SVM-RFE - AI, you expressed interest since he added AI and didn't just say SVM-RFE correct? of course that caught your eye. As for watching HDC again nothing that would cause the SEC to bark at as it is typical forward looking stuff that can happen or not depending on which side of the bed Fromholzer woke up on that day.

Development? these are all typical things said for years, what have we developed?.

Also he was a good friend of George to state the least.
___________________________________
research personal life of ....

Straight off my cuff...I'm just a layman and can easily see the massive money it would take and professionals needed? not to mention time this will take. Heck by that time I will be cooked, ground up and urn-ish-ized but you should see my "landing zone" plus I won't need to mow the grass or clean the granite, very elaborate....and were not talking football.

Zenos...no doubt in my mind that you are professional in these areas.

re: I can make a case for HDC still commercializing their technology when the patents expire (I offered Myriad’s BRCA genes patent as an example).

I'm putting out feelers tomorrow referencing the Expert Market involving our day of reckoning.

I didn't read your post thoroughly and will read it again but one thing I have seen in the past and possibly by you is the following I took from your message. I do not understand someone commercializing our technology when our patent runs it's course, seriously (If I'm a lying I'm a dying ) can you explain further. why would anyone pay us if they don't have to and besides we don't have to and besides all we have id front office people...you know part time staff.

...hey I like my gunsmoke from the fifties.

Lets approach this another way.........

Mr. Fromholzer said Interim CEO he wasn't correct it has been way too long especially if we read between the lines as there is more to this than the $2.25 million.

Intel can sue us involving these patents but we can't sue them so indeed a settlement was reached and it looks like we agreed with Intel and offer we couldn't refuse?

The talk about AI well you know that is just machine learning and we have those but show me a direct patent powering/towering AL. Machine learning is the ABC steps but show me a straight AL patent application by HDC.

Maybe the clincher might be that HDC was one of his great experience within his career, do you really believe that line?

I believe he was being kind to HDC especially under the past friendship with George but really the company isn't interested in saying anything to us period simply because there is nothing to say and again there are things that can and should be addressed to some degree but nope! We have watch for all these years as they come and go have we not?

It is hard not to resists saying some things such as everyone understands that these directors don't meet in person they let their fingers do the walking and Fromholzer can't hold a cell phone up high enough at age 77 and then there was our famous BQ who resigned due to medical uses?
Yes Charles lets read between the lines.

BTW...maybe if they place the cell on speaker mode they wouldn't have needed to resign....so they meet 4 times a year if that?

Marty sure must have been mixed up saying no board meetings.

Hello Charles.... not sure about you but believe it is safe to say some of us have been reading between the lines for over 20 years involving HDC

Yes, I couldn't be more happier to finally strike gold here and I'll strangle that leprechaun if I get another chance but being realistic says we are done. Now we might have some type of licensing agreement with Intel and I say this due to the pluses and minuses that we can't sue Intel but they can sue us? It seems Intel placed us on a one way street.

Being no Interim CEO you must chalk up 1 negative point that Mr. Fromholzer doesn't have a clue. I don't believe he understood machine learning that big bucks are in AI or did he however, NO additional AI patent applications for HDC? Could that be because Jason Weston is doing great with new patents for Google or Microsoft. Why would he bother with HDC when we have no money actually no money for years. Well so that was a fluke so how about our Isabelle Guyon now she knows these areas inside out....holy crap, she is doing great with patenting handbags/purses.

You see we are done as to cranking out patents but if not there doesn't appear to be any reasons for HDC to tell us, nor address many things that they could tell us, period.

BTW...count how many AI patents exist in 2023.

That is absolutely correct, about time you posted.

Without getting into details that don't matter HDC received a couple of $millions and MUST holdout from locking the door because they must face Vennwest for several reasons. As for the comment made by Fromholzer I guess people here don't know that all machine learning is going to/towards AI but HDC is NOT, no way in hell.
....as for a proud Interim CEO ..... clearly an echo chamber and even if? he/she has stage fright.

Personally, I think Mr. Fromholzer just wasn't clear enough and that investors are reading between the lines which is wrong.

Look you guys I think if there is any truth that HDC isn't washed up then the shortest route to destiny is as follows. because there is no way in hell that HDC can do anything as the great as the "Wizard of OZ" I mean Intel.....

But understand this is highly unlikely but the only fit if we are not washed up. Intel would have already started this design but for HDC's curse to finally let loose I just don't see it! ....OK here goes.......

May 22, 2023 2:38 PM EDT
May 22 (Reuters) - Intel Corp (INTC.O) on Monday provided a handful of new details on a chip for artificial intelligence (AI) computing it plans to introduce in 2025 as it shifts strategy to compete against Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) and Advanced Micro Devices Inc (AMD.O).

At a supercomputing conference in Germany on Monday, Intel said its forthcoming "Falcon Shores" chip will have 288 gigabytes of memory and support 8-bit floating point computation. Those technical specifications are important as artificial intelligence models similar to services like ChatGPT have exploded in size, and businesses are looking for more powerful chips to run them.

The details are also among the first to trickle out as Intel carries out a strategy shift to catch up to Nvidia, which leads the market in chips for AI, and AMD, which is expected to challenge Nvidia's position with a chip called the MI300.

Intel, by contrast, has essentially no market share after its would-be Nvidia competitor, a chip called Ponte Vecchio, suffered years of delays.

Intel on Monday said it has nearly completed shipments for Argonne National Lab's Aurora supercomputer based on Ponte Vecchio, which Intel claims has better performance than Nvidia's latest AI chip, the H100.

But Intel's Falcon Shores follow-on chip won't be to market until 2025, when Nvidia will likely have another chip of its own out.

Jeff McVeigh, corporate vice president of Intel's super compute group, said the company is taking time to rework the chip after giving up its prior strategy of combining graphics processing units (GPUs) with its central processing units (CPUs).

"While we aspire to have the best CPU and the best GPU in the market, it was hard to say that one vendor at one time was going to have the best combination of those," McVeigh told Reuters. "If you have discrete offerings, that allows you at the platform level to choose both between the ratio as well as the vendors."

as usual, another Friday passes and no news?....nothing with Georgia court nor at the GA Corporation office...or SEC.

Thank you...you get used to having some patience sometime, I have my arm extended with a tin cup but don't hear any change dropping in .... Looks like another night without a coffee? 😎

do you remember your post about Adam?

..there is much in this story book of HDC but mostly pain, not enough positive to buy a cup of coffee.

Here is one........by Klinkerhoffen
Re: None
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:22:19 AM Post # of 17932
NEWS OUT :HDVY Announces Progress in its Efforts to Cancel Intel Patent Claiming the RFE-SVM Method

SAVANNAH, Ga.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Health Discovery Corporation (HDC) (OTCBB:HDVY.ob - News) is pleased to announce that its continuation patent application with claims directed to its RFE-SVM method, which was filed in November 2010, has already been indicated by the U.S. Patent Office to be allowable. The claims of the continuation application were copied from those of Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077, entitled “Recursive Feature Eliminating Method Based on a Support Vector Machine”, which was issued in early 2010 and purports to claim rights in HDC’s proprietary RFE-SVM method. By copying the claims of the Intel patent, HDC sought to provoke an interference proceeding in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to obtain an administrative ruling that HDC is the exclusive owner of all rights in the RFE-SVM method. Under Patent Office procedures, the examiner is required to check the claims against the claims of issued patents, including the Intel patent, to determine whether the claims interfere with other patents or applications. This search has been completed and the examiner is now aware of the existence of the competing claims. This is the first step in initiating interference proceedings. Once the interference proceeding begins, HDC will be identified as the “senior party” based on its earlier priority date, which goes back to 2001. As the “junior party”, due to its earliest priority date of August 2005, Intel will have the burden of proving that its date of actual invention was earlier than HDC’s earliest filing date. If Intel is unable to meet this burden, the claims of Intel’s patent will be canceled by the Patent Office.

“With our head start of more than four years over Intel’s supposed invention of RFE-SVM, Health Discovery is confident that the Patent Office will find that Intel has no rights in the technology," stated Stephen D. Barnhill, M.D., HDC’s Chairman and CEO. “It is nonetheless a testimonial to the value of the RFE-SVM technology when an industry giant such as Intel attempts to claim exclusive rights to it.”
Still further evidence of the importance of RFE-SVM is provided by Google Scholar, which indicates that the 2002 paper originally describing the technology has been cited more than 2,200 times in academic publications, scientific journals and patents. “This widespread adoption of the technology translates directly to licensing opportunities through the Company’s university licensing program along with a soon-to-be-announced program for patent enforcement against commercial users,” said Dr. Barnhill.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65818426

Unreal, 3 hours to service a damn car I should have just had them pick me up and bring me back home but I don't generally mind waiting. Maybe next week when I take the truck in I'll have my wife follow me. At any rate I'm now going to clutter the message board when I figure out how to hopscotch to get before 1/19/12 of my posts. For some reason my posts prior are missing but I know I posted earlier with my present alias....actually since 11/9/06

As for Alice and her nasty sister I believe HDC changed some of the wording at least twice. Once under PTAB and once in Texas court? Look, I'm all wet so probably no help to anyone.

Now if this was during the first USPTO/PTAB sessions the fact remained the Judge rules only rules on first patent owner not anything else. I recall Alan explaining that to me long ago, actually I could find that post but aren't we just cutting hairs at this point?

Sunspotter....as you know I have no problem with you and even when Terry would dog HDC or another stock that I liked it took time, being open about understanding different views. I recall LBJ, Drakes and yes you from years ago. Some of us learn while other don't or refuse. Sometime the newbies get all wrapped up as I did many years ago and you know you can't tell them anything as they won't listen so just like shorting stock it is apart of balancing the system same with the extremes from one end of the positive spectrum to the other.

The only problem with the chart you are showing me 😎 is it is pictured in a mirror meaning the chart is really moving upwards.
____________________
If there was no balancing the system would collapse.

HLYK 10-Q is available https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001680139/000121390023086915/f10q0923_healthlynked.htm

Chazzy....it went right by you, if Zenos could be Mason who could be Hamilton Burger. Of course "Sunspotter"

Chazzy..OK...so who is Hamilton Burger?

From my understanding it isn't just updating HDC filings that will allow us to trade again it goes deeper than that. I would say provided we do file soon it would make common sense for HDC to also address all of their shareholder in several needed areas in which I'm sure they are fully aware of.

King....if HDC and Intel are still negotiating (which I seriously doubt) then rest assure that we will be getting a few Intel stock shares in our trading accounts. I would even take 144 two year restricted stock or certs provided Intel pays the fees later.

Hello everyone what a massive crowed since I wasn't around bugging everyone earlier.
Chazzy, still..... the $2.25 million prior the discovery phase conclusion could be positive or negative but I gotta tell you I doubt Intel would even think of waiting for the Vennwest conclusion. Intel as I see them don't have time to dick around with HDC yet I gotta hand it to you that they spent 8 or 10 years with HDC hammering on their back saying ...

Charles I see a post over on Yahoo referencing tax losses and someone had sold multi thousands of shares like lets say it amounted to $40 bucks. It appears the person who posted doesn't understand or know what the seller bought those shares for to begin with. They just see the sale not understanding what the person paid for those shares to begin with. The loss as you know is the difference not what one sees as a final sale.

One more thought? is it possible that the $2.25 million settlement was something offered to HDC before the discovery phase?

Of course my post was not to be taken personal which I hope it wasn't. Yes a lot of pain and so many missed opportunities something more than meets the eye was wrong with our company.

A good question from the get go, why did HDC Barnhill directly decide not to pursue Biomarkers when that was the main course for our corporation. Was he just after what he could get or pump or what. We lost far too many deals or they weren't deals like we were lead to believe. Of course there is a fine line within the company disclaimer just like what Mr. Fromholzer said about a Interim CEO. It is all in the wordings these penny stock say.

Yes, are we the glorified burnt toast that fought Intel.
__________________
I have early morning appointments today talk much later. It does seem when I'm not around to post here that we get news so maybe good news might be announced today, we can hope?

Ending 2011 we had as follows........
Intellectual Property - In connection with the SVM Acquisition, we obtained rights to the intellectual property within the “SVM portfolio” that currently consists of fifty-nine patents which were or have since issued as well as twenty-eight other patent applications that are pending in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. The issued patents and pending applications in the SVM portfolio to date, including new applications that we have filed since acquiring the original IP, HDC

So do we blame Intel, NeoGenomics or HDC for doing very little business? None of those patents would start to expire until 2019. This gave them 8 years to do something? I mean HDC won't even talk to us how in the world could we expect them to do any serious business, now understand their attorneys did the work.

It is getting closer to the end of the year where many must look for any tax write off for taxes.

.....for the next 20 plus years 😟

Zenos...I must say very superb! Intel says they don’t need a licensing agreement because HDC’s patents are invalid. 2017 - Intel files two motions to invalidate our patents. Later that year we sent a letter to Intel’s President urging a business collaboration (still trying!). Unless this is a recent statement I’m unaware of, I gather that Intel only claimed that they were not infringing, and not they were not using our patent.

I don't need a gold rush but sure would like to leave with at least my underwear socks and shoes....I mean winter is upon us and it is getting real cold standing around and shivering, waiting on snow or gold coins to fall from the sky above.

BTW...next leprechaun I see is going to get his a$$ kicked.

Alan so true but I still hold some hope,

I have always highly valued what you bring to this message board, spotted that from the first few posts you wrote.

I do see the first issue you listed as straight up but the second wow! now that would send me hiding under a rock if I were HDC or their attorney's.

I also doubt since it is my perception that HDC did not want to rock and roll any "Cease and Desist" since that would really pi$$ off Intel but maybe HDC should have done so?

Alan...I haven't even finished reading your post but HDC wanted the courts to decide that but here is an example referencing reasonable Royalties

1. Reasonable royalty rates are used in patent infringement cases

Patent infringement occurs when an individual or organization uses an inventor’s patented product or method without their permission. If a patent owner has licensed their patent rights to a licensee, and the licensee breaches the terms of the patent license agreement, this is also infringement.

If a patent owner’s intellectual property rights have been infringed, they can take the infringer to court. The court will determine appropriate compensation that the infringer must pay the claimant.

In patent infringement cases, the claimant has two choices for determining damages:

A ‘lost profits’ claim: If the claimant is able to prove the profits it would have earned had the infringement not occurred, they may be able to claim that amount as damages.
The ‘reasonable royalty rate’ approach: This approach is often used where lost profits cannot be proven. It provides the claimant with a market-based rate.

The most appropriate option depends on the individual circumstances of the infringement case.
2. There is no single method for calculating a reasonable royalty rate

When it comes to calculating a reasonable royalty rate, there is no one-size-fits-all method. In fact, the laws, guidelines and techniques surrounding reasonable royalty rates are constantly evolving.

Here are some of the most common frameworks you can use to determine reasonable royalties for a patented invention:

Market approach: If you have access to suitably comparable licensing agreements, you can base the reasonable royalty rate on the royalties earned in comparable transactions. In order to use the market approach, the third-party licensing data must meet strict technical and economic comparability criteria. Remember that royalties can be affected by factors including industry, market size, product growth potential and the nature of the licensed IP. Use the RoyaltyRange database today to find real comparable royalties for your analysis.
The Georgia-Pacific/hypothetical negotiation approach: This method involves carrying out a hypothetical license negotiation between a ‘willing licensor’ and a ‘willing licensee’. It was developed through the case of Georgia-Pacific Corp v. United States Plywood Corp in 1970. The method outlines 15 factors that you can use to determine a reasonable royalty rate through the hypothetical negotiation framework. These include the royalties received by the licensor for the patent, the commercial considerations of both parties, the profitability of the product using the patent and the value the patent has brought to the infringer.
Analytical approach: This involves identifying the infringer’s projected profits for the patent in question at the time of the infringement. These projected profits are then split between the relevant parties as a percentage of sales, and the claimant’s percentage is applied to the actual sales during the infringing period to determine the appropriate damages.

These are only quick overviews of some of the available calculation methods.

Patent licensing and patent infringement cases are complex, so it’s important to consider each method carefully and take into account the unique circumstances of the case.
3. Comparable licenses are a good starting point for any analysis

If you use the market approach, you will need to draw on comparable royalties drawn from real, up-to-date license agreements. The quickest way to find reliable data is to use RoyaltyRange database.

Whatever method you choose for determining reasonable royalty rates, comparable licensing transactions offer a good starting point for your analysis. They enable you to see the royalties agreed for comparable licenses in real market transactions, giving you a basis for your calculation.

You can search the RoyaltyRange database to find recent third-party license agreements quickly and easily. Simply enter your comparability criteria below and we’ll provide the relevant results.
Search for comparable patent royalties today

Ready to use our database? Go to the bottom of this page, where you’ll find our purchase forms.

You can choose from the following services:

One Search: Access the database on a one-off basis. No subscription needed.
Readymade One Search reports: Download one of our pre-prepared royalty reports for your industry.
Subscription: Sign up for 12 months’ unlimited access to our royalty rates data.
Benchmarking study: Get an in-depth report that compares relevant royalty rates for your product and industry. See averages and the interquartile range.
Readymade benchmarking study: Download one of our pre-prepared benchmarking studies for your industry.

also worth mentioning.......as to the interference....
As previously disclosed, the Company submitted a patent application to provoke an interference with Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077. The application file had been transferred to the U.S. Patent Office’s Interference Division.

On September 21, 2016, the Company received notification that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) declared an Interference between the Company’s pending patent application covering SVM-Recursive Feature Elimination (“SVM-RFE”) and Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077, entitled “Recursive Feature Eliminating Method based on a Support Vector Machine”. An Interference is an administrative proceeding within the USPTO that is used to determine which party was the first to invent an invention that is claimed in two (or more) independently-owned patent applications.

The Company has been designated the “Senior Party” in the Interference, meaning that it is entitled to a presumption of prior inventorship based on its earlier filing date. As the “Junior Party”, the burden falls upon Intel to prove that it conceived and reduced the claimed invention to practice prior to the Company’s earlier filing date .

In addition to the patent application involved in the Interference, the Company currently has three issued U.S. patents and five issued foreign patents covering the SVM-RFE method.

I recall clearly that Li copied our patent word for word but did change the wording in (I believe that last entry) then HDC copied his work and submitted to force interference.

I had posted in the past that I thought Intel actually supersized the patent even further but I'm not savvy like you.