Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You have seen it all from the early days and know what is left so it doesn't look or feel good. My hope is an early settlement but if not that the Judge extends HDC the discovery needed but that might not be granted to the extent I believe they need. I hated to see HDC say so many times about what they "believe"...because I "believe" something it doesn't hold water as truth of proof.
I have this feeling that the Judge will not allow the in depth discovery that HDC needs to proof their case.
Hey Dog...I don't blame you one bit as we have been trained by Barnhill many moons ago, I mean HDC was all about Biomarkers and that went to the wayside. I doubt much that Barnhill spilt all over tarnation matters but you just wonder who is using our tools. Recall this?
Health Discovery Corporation Announces Sale of Biomarker Signature for AIDS
Wednesday November 16, 9:34 am ET University of Miami to Acquire HDC's Recently Discovered AIDS Biomarker Signature and Agrees to Continuing Royalty Payments for Any Future Commercial Sales related to Biomarkers
SAVANNAH, Ga.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 16, 2005--Health Discovery Corporation announced today that the University of Miami will acquire full ownership of the recent AIDS Biomarker Signature discovered by the scientists at Health Discovery Corporation using the company's patent-protected Fractal Genomic Modeling (FGM) Technology. The University of Miami agreed to an upfront cash payment and continuing royalty payments for any future commercial sales related to this new discovery. Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.
Savannah-based Health Discovery Corporation (OTCBB: HDVY - News) is uniquely positioned in the field of pattern recognition. Through its broad patent portfolio and the efforts of its recognized scientific team, HDC is focused on commercializing its intellectual property in genomic and proteomic biomarker discovery, medical imaging, diagnostics, and pharmaceutical advancements in personalized medicine. The company's patent-protected technology also has significant application in non-medical fields that require manipulation and analysis of large, complex datasets such as insurance, financial markets, Internet search & spam, and homeland security.
This news release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27a of the Securities Acts of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove correct.
I'm only going to post this one link, enjoy it for 1 millisecond, back in the day we really felt this was going to explode into another Qualcomm.
https://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr_03_0826-dirwireless.shtml
I'm trying but no doubt making mistakes here and there. We need someone like MBMoney to look into it, that is...if demand about this swells up enough.
Do keep in mind if this is our last stand or it works out that way at least our CEO - George H. McGovern III is doing his best. I will never bad mouth him again mark this message.
It would be educational for shareholders if someone in this thread or perhaps representing HDC would walk us through the steps and variations in general. I mean am I even close? We need someone who has the expertise in this area not a yo yo like me.
Good Sport, I would think Intel has at least 30 days to respond, then the Clerk of Court will take whatever time needed to line up and document as many "new" cases that they see on the books. Most likely (from what I see) a supporting judge may handle these phone conference which most are all new cases.
If you look at August 5 or so you will see like 20 or so cases at 9 am. These or probably the start of each case.
Next on August 13 at 1:30pm I see 13 case doing phone conferencing.
So I figure at best might see HDC sometime in late September/October
As for the "Markman Hearing" it will be "Judge Alan Albright" but I'm looking at when this will transpire verses the discovery, discovery hearing timing and depth of discovery is going to be the key in my thoughts. The Markman Hearing somewhat leans toward possible outcome so we have prior USPTO decisions for HDC and a strong indication waving in from of Judge Albright (down the road) but question remains what are HDC attorneys seeking?
If I'm George I only want to do discovery up to a certain point and that depends on what I want from Intel. Just enough pressure not to burden the Judge nor have Intel sit on us. Where does happiness begin and where does it end?
So I see everything about this case involving the ability in the discovery stage and where within the Markman hearing will this be applied.
Alan, I am enjoying all the knowledge and information you are sharing with us so please continual. As for the list, it seem endless doesn't it? I will look into it with greater depth when I have the quality time and when I'm not in so much physical pain. I shouldn't be doing certain things around the house but I just won't listen, never did as a kid so why start now! ; - )))
Thank you again........
George, Health Discovery Corporation, if this lawsuit isn't our last chance move why not pull MBMoney into the Company - HDC. I'm sure you are fully aware of his professional talents, I would hate to see him not post in this message thread anymore but we all want the company to move forward.
Hitoneout....it looks to me that HDC is presenting "Exceptional Circumstances Warrant".
I believe our case hinges strongly on this area to allow the discovery HDC is after.
The Local Rules state:
Except with regard to discovery necessary for claim construction, all other
discovery is stayed until after the Markman Hearing. Notwithstanding this
general stay of discovery, the Court will permit limited discovery by
agreement of the parties, or upon request, where exceptional circumstances warrant.
________________________________
Here is one big reason why we need this granted...... 151. As Defendant Intel is in the sole
and complete possession of its relevant source code, algorithms, etc., with such information not
publicly available, Plaintiff HDC respectfully requests early, limited discovery to confirm which
Intel products and uses by Intel infringe
Alan, I don't think some will understand that the Judge dismissed all other pending motions because it was determined that HDC had earlier documentations papers which were prior Intel. We were first so we were granted ownership.
Maybe this link might help him https://acts.uspto.gov/ifiling/PublicView.jsp?identifier=106066&identifier2=null&tabSel=4&action=filecontent&replyTo=PublicView.jsp
The Judge decided the case on priority date, information so we own the patent. Owning a patent doesn't mean it will hold water and this is where I think he is getting snagged. No doubt Intel must pick it apart but I sure hope they fail.
I figure $3 to $5 million will be thrown at this case.
You know as well as I that all this was started because the USPTO screwed up and issued Intel that patent. It was necessary to provoke actions reexamination.
I have often wondered if any of this had to do with the problems between Barnhill and Tobin verses "possibly" our main patent attorney, but only a thought.
At any rate everyone have a great weekend and stay safe
Alan, Intel tried to have their own patent destroyed. They may proceed as you indicated but no doubt the history of Intel trying to destroy that primary patent (of their own) in order to kill 4 other patents of ours may not go over very well. No doubt if I were Intel I would challenge our patent too but for Intel, could be a double edge blade.
Let Intel ship the 2 over on a boat, slow boat because it will be a long time before we see anything concrete. As for those 2 inventors they are probably still in California, maybe sunbathing on a beach. I say that simply because who would copy our patent and try and get away with it.
Hey this could be the Alamo for us but By Golly we must act!
MBMoney...we know that HDC has thrown everything at Intel which is normal...reminds me of one of my ex-wives. I'm looking at out patents and the USPTO is showing a September 2019 date stating that HDC - Health Discovery now has the right to exclude others from developing, commercializing or licensing this patented technology without the uncertainty of the Interference or concerns over the ownership of the SVM-RFE patents.
It would seem to me that HDC has no reach into Intel prior September 2019 however, the documented history seems to show abuses so Intel may be placed in a corner for a time out period.
I wonder to what degree does our technologies have with new products? where is the point and power of "Cease and Desist" it is clear to me that would be a bad move for HDC plus their is so many unknowns about the incorporation of our technologies within their products and software. It has always been that our technologies enhance as they are tools to be used. A tool isn't a product, we can't look at a CPU chip and say there it is see it that's ours.
Yes would love to hear early deal between Intel and us and enjoy the spike in share price when we can. Just think if the NEO/Intel stuff were to happen back in 2005 our stock price would have kissed double dollars. It seems HDC never gets a break lets hope HDC stock ends up flying like an Eagle.
Is this him many years ago, nothing has changed?
This is from February 7, 2020. case# 20CV2157....he sports 13,627,888 shares.
Save yourself some grief and just know this is the way it will flow!
A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".[1]
Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., found that the language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. In the United States, juries determine facts in many situations,[2] but judges determine matters of law.[3][4]
Markman hearings are important, because the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims. A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, because the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole. Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection.[5]
The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.[6]
Of course I'm old! anyways "qualify as legal patents". Of course they are legal patents but I believe Intel must try to show that the 4 patents don't hold water. What will be interesting and if HDC can prove that Intel patents 7,146,050 & 7,174,040 are infringing this might be enough to bring them to the table to cough up royalties.
I need time to study the claims against Intel hey I'm still back on page 57 Count 2 but just love what I see within area 100. "Direct Infringement" involving patent 959.
MBMoney, I believe if HDC is able to win this case where Intel will pay royalties going forward that that will promote more leverage and bargaining power in other areas. I might be over reacting but I also wonder after the “Marksman Hearing” I suspect this will go to trial, I am having thoughts that the Judge will not allow the extensive discovery that HDC needs. When I read what appears to me as excessively statements by HDC stating from “Information & belief I sense that the Judge may strike the “belief” from the Jury. I could be very wrong about HDC using the belief statement as many times that they have however, I most certainly love how our Inventors, our main attorney for years and of course the constant push that George is doing regardless of outcome. About the possible main issue…it appears to fly over everyone’s head but I like the positive flow the traders are expressing and a few that may become more than just traders.
You would think so wouldn't you but that won't happen. They will have a Markman hearing first with "limited discovery". This will not resolve much at all but sure would be nice if it did but it can't in this case.
Good Sport, you need to forget about everyone except Intel. We don't know if this is the last change at George swing the bat to possibly connect. I will guarantee you if HDC is successful in just getting Intel to pay a royalty from this point forward that we should opt that deal. Look, if you have looked at the massive technology and available money many of these other corporations have it is massive. I tried to have King Oil taper down the push towards Google and the rest of them for a few reasons. These huge corporation can sit on our a$$ forever. What do you think would happen if Microsoft, Google and Amazon got together with Intel...a huge can or worms would open but that may happen anyways. We are actually limited in so many ways period. George might be shooting in the dark and hoping like hell that this sticks, by filing this lawsuit on Intel it could also totally destroy us. You need to look at this or at least I am that this is our final hour to figure out if we have any hope in licensing our technologies with Intel and nothing more. Of course I hope for a buyout and all this other stuff but when you check through the internet and see so many twist with SVM, SVM-RFE and even many other newer twists involving all these ADDITIONAL technologies I will guarantee you George is sweating this move. If you think we would file bankruptcy when we totally run out of money I don't think so. You need money to windup HDC if they decide to do so. We would not go after Intel only having a few hundred thousand dollars as we need cash to fight and contingencies for other needed funds.
Again there are so many twists in the technologies to be twisted and used differently we will be lucky when it comes down to my greatest "real" fear and you can see by the complaint that HDC tried to cover this involving Intel's own mouth and moves..."patentability". This is our threat.
Now think about it, look at our share price.
You are correct but I will guarantee you any long term investor (not traders) will tell you it is about himself not us. Most know there are people who give and those who take. Everyone has an opinion but I gotta tell you, I would love to be a fly on the wall at Prime Mover Capital...
MBMoney, nice to see you post again. I see you are wondering about what they are up to? Hey! I haven't a clue but sure have a good memory unless you ask my wife.
Loookie here!.........
3/30/10 Quirk had 55,461,664 shares of stock.
7/27/10 HDC Settlement agreement with Quirk as follows
Standstill Agreement. From the date this Settlement Agreement is executed until the fifth anniversary thereof, neither Investor nor any of its managers, managing members, officers, directors or representatives, shall (a) in any manner acquire, agree to acquire or make any proposal to acquire, directly or indirectly, any assets or securities of HDC (including any beneficial ownership thereof), any rights or options to acquire any assets or securities of HDC (including any beneficial ownership thereof) or otherwise seek to acquire voting or economic rights in HDC securities (but not including the receipt of the Warrant Shares, the Settlement Warrant, or the common stock upon the exercise of the Settlement Warrant; voting or economic rights associated with the forgoing; and any rights to additional securities to which Investor may be entitled based on its ownership of the foregoing, whether by stock split, reverse stock split, stock dividend or otherwise); (b) except at the specific written request of HDC, acting through a vote of a majority of its board of directors, propose to enter into, directly or indirectly, any merger, tender offer, exchange offer, recapitalization or any other business combination involving HDC; (c) solicit any proxies or consents to vote any securities of HDC; (d) engage in short selling the common stock of HDC or otherwise enter into any agreement or arrangement with any person for the purposes of short selling the common stock of HDC; (e) otherwise act, alone or in concert with others, to seek materially to control or influence the management, board of directors, or policies of HDC; (f) voluntarily cooperate with any party seeking to articulate or assert claims against HDC, whether similar to the Investor Claims or otherwise unless such claims arise from conduct occurring after the date of this Agreement, do not arise from the Purchase Agreement and have not otherwise been waived or released by Investor under this Agreement (provided, however, that in the event Investor is involuntarily compelled to cooperate with a third party, Investor shall comply with the provisions of Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement by giving notice to HDC); (g) disclose any intention, plan, or arrangement inconsistent with the foregoing; or (h) advise, assist, or encourage any other persons in connection with any of the foregoing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Investor sells securities of HDC that it holds as of the date of execution of the Settlement Agreement (as reflected on Exhibit C) or sells the shares underlying the Existing Warrants, it shall not be precluded from acquiring securities of HDC up to the aggregate amount (in terms of shares) of those that it sold (with any re-purchased shares then being deemed to be shares reflected on Exhibit C or underlying the Existing Warrants for purposes of this provision); provided that the number of shares available for repurchase under this sentence shall be adjusted to reflect any split, reverse split or other such adjustment in HDC’s common stock following the date of any such sale
10/30/11 10-K Quirk had 24,092,460 shares of stock.
A recent blog.........you gotta love this one...
http://www.wacopatentblog.com/waco-patent-blog/archives/05-2020
King, check this out..........
http://www.wacopatentblog.com/waco-patent-blog/q-a-with-judge-alan-d-albright
Question for "Judge Alan D Albright"
Recently, David had the chance to interview the Honorable Alan D. Albright. In this Q&A with Judge Albright, the Waco Patent Blog hopes to provide practitioners in Judge Albright's court with some useful guidance and practice pointers.
WPB: Judge, many have taken note of your invitation to submit audio recordings for briefs. Are there any pointers that you would like to share with parties and their counsel?
Judge: First of all, there is no requirement to submit an audio file. I do find that it is helpful to have an audio version of a brief, but, with or without it, by the time for any action on my part I will have read every written brief that the parties submit. I certainly will not penalize any party for not providing an audio file. If a party does submit a file, it needs to be as an MP3 or Dropbox file. Also, I would prefer that the reader not speak out case citations, but rather simply say something like “see case”. Again, I will have read all of the written documents and the cited authorities.
WPB: Do you have any other “nuts and bolts”, brief-related suggestions for parties before your court?
Judge: Because I tend to write all of my own orders and opinions, and it is often useful to excerpt certain passages from the parties’ filings, I would appreciate receiving Word versions of motions and briefs. Counsel can email those to my law clerk.
WPB: When the inevitable discovery and other procedural disputes arise, how would you prefer that the attorneys approach the issue in your court?
Judge: I was in litigation practice for many years. I understand that counsel needs to protect their client’s interests, and that disputes will arise. I do not penalize attorneys or their clients for disagreeing. At the same time, I want to resolve disputes as quickly, fairly and efficiently as possible. So, I encourage counsel for all parties to simply call my chambers when a reasonable dispute arises. At that time, or as soon as I am available, I will resolve a reasonable dispute – have no problem doing that. At the same time, I do not want to get a call about petty disputes, the resolution of which would be apparent to any reasonable attorney.
WPB: While you obviously have any number of other kinds of cases, your patent docket seems to have received the most attention, nationally. Do you have any practice pointers with respect to the pivotal Markman hearings in your patent cases?
Judge: There are several features of my Markman hearings that parties would likely want to know. Unless the case is a multiple patent one, parties can expect one-half day for the Markman hearing. I have not yet found a case that required any more than that, though I do not at this time have an arbitrary argument time limit, either for parties or for any given claim term. With respect to argument, I will want to hear argument from both sides as to each disputed claim term, before moving to the next term. If a party is urging “plain and ordinary meaning”, I will want to first hear from the party that urges other than “plain and ordinary meaning”. While this may seem self-evident, I would like for at least one party to bring physical copies of the patent or patents at issue. I recently held a Markman hearing in which I was forced, because of a technical issue, to read the patent on my smart phone. I would also appreciate the parties bringing a simple list of the claim terms that are at issue. I’ve had cases in which the briefing actually left it unclear about what terms the parties were actually in disagreement. Finally, I want the parties to know that my goal is to reach the right claim construction, not to conform to any artificial structure for argument or time limits. I do not want to hear parties repeatedly arguing and re-arguing the same points over-and-over, especially once it is clear that we have exhausted all credible arguments and I have reached my conclusions, but I am happy to hear whatever counsel believe that I should hear until we reach that point.
WPB: Your standing order provides for tutorials. Do you have any pointers or preferences that you would like to share about tutorials?
Judge: As with audio files, tutorials are not required, but they can be very helpful in some cases. They are most helpful to me when they are structured in a way that explains, as simply as possible, what problem an embodiment of the claimed invention solves, and how it does it. I am not looking, for example, for just another way for a party to somehow support a claim construction position. Also, note that tutorials will not be on the record.
WPB: Your standing order for patent cases provide a clear structure and sequence for patent cases in your court. Do you have anything to add with respect to your prescribed procedures and schedules for parties to consider as they begin a patent case.
Judge: Yes, actually. As I have said in about every forum in which I have had the chance, my goal is to provide a venue in which every party knows that they have had their day in court, have had every opportunity to present their case, have been treated fairly, and have had every opportunity to do all of this in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. Consistent with that, I not only do not mind, but encourage counsel to suggest alternative proceedings, sequences and schedules that depart from my default arrangements, if they believe that it makes sense for their case. If I agree, I will adjust accordingly.
WPB: Thank you for your time today, Judge. I think that this information will further help parties and their counsel appreciate the opportunity that both bringing and defending a patent case in your court represents for their clients.
Kevin???, we didn't know what our CEO was doing behind the scenes prior, did we? Now we also know why the "D" series have a 10:1 ratio in voting rights. I believe HDC refuses to lose control of the company especially in gearing up for any settlement, buyout or fight with Intel.
Other issue presented earlier I hope will address that with HDC or perhaps our main patent attorney?
Post 14883 is the only real threat HDC has. Other than that we will have the world in our hands.
As for the share price? Hey... 3rd day of trading first 45 min of trading, is the stock up or down becomes the avenue.
It would be cool if George were able to tell us that Intel has reacted in a positive manner since filing the lawsuit but can not elaborate any of the content at this time but I am wishful thinking as Intel probably won't react in our time frame.
Wow! haven't seen you in a while? I know Alan over in the Intel thread talked about Intel's upper management indicating and suggesting what you have studied. I am going over the 144 page document and of course I'm supper slow so maybe by next year I will grasp it all but so far it is impressive.
I keep on falling back in our past which is hard to break from but I must, nice talking with you.
King 45 minute rule kicks in at 10:15 and we don't look good so be prepared. We are forced to wait again. It sure would be nice to have an early settlement involving Intel.
King....I'm not even opening up my software at this level but what are the ask numbers.
I actually don't believe the company is dumping since George must hold the power vote especially dealing with Intel.
King, I gotta laugh and just shake my head.eom
The A/S stands at 900 million, PERIOD!
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141788/000110465920078917/tm2023402d1_10q.htm
If Intel decides to fight the case and not settle with HDC they will try and pry open the area of patentability. This is the only area they can go after. HDC has shown in their quest that Intel did value their own patent to the extent of verbal communication with HDC plus an attempt to destroy their own patent in order to squash ours. Alan from the Intel message thread has mentioned prior that the Judge in the original case did not rule on patentability, so don’t be surprised if Intel decides to still fight HDC in this area. Now what compounds this Intel may try to prove that all 4 patents have patentability issues.
Let’s hope that Intel decides to work with HDC, that was all we wanted in the first place.
I haven't phone Chazzy in years but from checking the Internet his business looking pretty good and no doubt seems to be enjoying it.
OU is doing great, actually talked with him yesterday about HDC.
I understand what you are saying about a solid case against Intel Corporation (and I hope so) but my fact seeking within tells me if this was basically an air tight HDC would have introduced the case sooner. I have no doubt this looks really good but looks isn't everything except when your picking up a good looking chick. I'm sure money is a concern yet I think that is lined up too, Intel will want to probably suppress this as much as possible. Remember, Intel is in China too.... now how does that sound to the political arena plus Intel's patent Inventors were Chinese <<<<<<< Now that is powerful, extremely! patent 7,685,077
A summary Of The Controversy
HDC and Intel are not strangers. In fact, the controversy between the parties has been
Ongoing for nearly a decade. In November 2010, after realizing that Intel had obtained a
Patent, on a learning machine technology (SVM-RFE) that HDC already owned and
patented, HDC sought to provoke an interference with Intel’s Patent No. 7,685,077
(“Intel’s ‘077 patent”). On October 3, 2011, HDC filed for re-examination of Intel’s ‘077
patent. HDC also later successfully provoked the interference before the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (PTAB)between Intel’s ‘077 patent and HDC’s then-pending application
directed towards the same SVM-RFE technology. On November 10, 2011, HDC sent a
letter to counsel for Intel, advising it of the reexamination and potential interference
proceedings, and offering Intel the opportunity to license the HDC patents. In December
2011, counsel for Intel responded to HDC’s letter, stating that Intel would likely not fight
the patent office proceedings unless Intel was using the SVM-RFE technology. Intel did
fight, and thus began a 9-year battle including a three-year interference proceeding during
which Intel implemented a scorched-earth strategy, first attempting to claim it was the
rightful owner of the SVM-RFE technology at issue, but in the event that failed (which it
ultimately did), Intel also tried to invalidate all of the HDC patents-in-suit, as well as
sacrifice its own ‘077 patent in the process, seemingly to continue using the SVM-RFE
technology. Ultimately, HDC won the interference proceeding, and Intel’s ‘077 patent was
cancelled. During this lengthy exchange with the PTAB, not once did Intel expressly deny
using the patented technology. Rather its actions in fighting HDC in the Patent Office for
nearly a decade, and its willingnessto invalidate its own patent in exchange for the PTO
invalidating the HDC patents, demonstrate that the opposite is true, and that Intel has and
continues to use the SVM-RFE technology –a technology patented and owned by HDC.
A more detailed timeline of the parties’ interactions and communications is presented in
HDC’s Support Vector Machine-Recursive Feature Elimination (SVM-RFE) is an
Important technology that is utilized across a broad spectrum of applications (e.g.,
artificial intelligence, drug discovery, healthcare, economics, coding, data collection and
data mining, etc.) and is widely used today. SVM-RFE uses learning machines (e.g.,
Support Vector Machines-SVM) to identify relevant patterns in datasets, and more
specifically, selects features within the datasets that best enable classification of the data
(e.g., Recursive Feature Elimination-RFE). As of the date of this complaint, the academic
paper that first described HDC’s SVM-RFE technology (discussed in greater detail below)
has been cited at least 8,098 times across numerous academic and industry mediums
(books, journals, reports, patents, etc.), including at least 378times in 2020 alone (and
counting). Defendant Intel, itself, seems to concede that SVM-RFE is important, as it
attempted to patent it for itself –its ‘077 patent –and fought to either keep its ‘077 patent
or otherwise destroy all SVM-RFE related patents. As explained below, Intel has itself
published numerous technical articles admitting that it has used the SVM-RFE technology
in designing and optimizing certain of its microprocessor lines. Given the widespread and
continuing use of the SVM-RFE technology by potential customers of Intel, there is no
reason to believe Intel has stopped using the technology. In fact, the widespread use of
SVM-RFE would require Intel to continue to conduct SVM-RFE testing, validation and
verification tasks, to ensure their processors and Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)
products can successfully run the SVM- RFE processes required by their customers.
Throughout our entire history since 2003 it has always been like some entity has always helding us back. Any long will probably tell you the same. Sure we have traders in and out, good and bad management and of course market makers but something else seems to always hold us back, could there be entities trying to shelve our patents.
King, if this stock price isn't in plus form by 10:15 tomorrow most will probably sell.
Hello Alan, hope all is well and that you and family are safe.
I still wish I had as many Intel shares as I do in my other holdings as I'm very concerned referencing the scope of the world and total economics balancing. We have been thrown trillions of dollars at a wall that is very weak yet the market tends to differ, yet the seams are apparent. I believe one of my financial advisors (DENT) will be spot on this time. He has cost us some big dollars but never lost liquidity but yes huge potential due to timing. We must have Trump in the White House another 4 years but I can't stand his continuing tweets/mouth, he is pushing so many voter away that work all day and don't have the luxury of study like so many of us. Extreme caution will be needed in the next year regardless of political party.
I 'll talk at you later.......
King...let me see a solid .10 a share hold then perhaps I will look at my accounts, .10 doesn't excite me at all but has my attention!
I wonder what percent of the in/out traders will set aside money for the grand finale involving the court case?
King, do you know who controls the shares in HDC? That is the reason those "D" series shares are so important, like 10:1 voting ratio. That is also part of the reason George isn't dumping shares.
King...just seen your message, Hey, it has to do with who I am and how I affect other people.