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.
When the dust settles it will be our turn but when is the question?
Why that patent is so important, massive history just massive
United States Patent 10,402,685
Guyon , et al. September 3, 2019
Recursive feature elimination method using support vector machines
Abstract
Identification of a determinative subset of features from within a group of features is
performed by training a support vector machine
using training samples with class
labels to determine a value of each feature,
where features are removed based on their
the value. One or more features having the
smallest values are removed and an updated
kernel matrix is generated using the remaining
features. The process is repeated until a
predetermined number of features remain which
are capable of accurately separating the data
into different classes. In some embodiments,
features are eliminated by a ranking criterion
based on a Lagrange multiplier corresponding to
each training sample.
Inventors: Guyon; Isabelle (Berkeley, CA), Weston; Jason Aaron Edward (New York, NY)
Applicant:
Name City State Country Type
Guyon; Isabelle
Weston; Jason Aaron Edward
Berkeley
New York
CA
NY
US
US
Assignee: HEALTH DISCOVERY CORPORATION (Atlanta, GA)
Family ID: 43781396
Appl. No.: 12/944,197
Filed: November 11, 2010
Prior Publication Data
Document Identifier Publication Date
US 20110106735 A1 May 5, 2011
Related U.S. Patent Documents
Application Number Filing Date Patent Number Issue Date
12890705 Sep 26, 2010 7970718
11928784 Sep 28, 2010 7805388
10494876 Jan 6, 2009 7475048
PCT/US02/35576 Nov 7, 2002
PCT/US02/16012 Jan 8, 2008 7318051
10057849 Oct 3, 2006 7117188
09633410 Apr 19, 2005 6882990
60347562 Nov 7, 2001
60292133 May 18, 2001
60292221 May 18, 2001
60332021 Nov 21, 2001
60161806 Oct 27, 1999
60168703 Dec 2, 1999
60184596 Feb 24, 2000
60191219 Mar 22, 2000
Current U.S. Class: 1/1
Current CPC Class: G06N 20/10 (20190101); G06N 20/00 (20190101); G06K 9/6231 (20130101); G16B 40/00 (20190201); G16B 25/00 (20190201)
Current International Class: G06N 20/00 (20190101); G06K 9/62 (20060101); G16B 40/00 (20190101); G06N 20/10 (20190101); G16B 25/00 (20190101)
References Cited [Referenced By]
U.S. Patent Documents
4881178 November 1989 Holland
5138694 August 1992 Hamilton
5255347 October 1993 Matsuba et al.
5649068 July 1997 Boser et al.
5809144 September 1998 Sirbu
5819246 October 1998 Ashida et al.
5950146 September 1999 Vapnik et al.
6087098 July 2000 McKiernan et al.
6112195 August 2000 Burges
6128608 October 2000 Barnhill
6134344 October 2000 Burges
6157921 December 2000 Barnhill
6161130 December 2000 Horvitz et al.
6187549 February 2001 Schmidt et al.
6251586 June 2001 Mulshine et al.
6427141 July 2002 Barnhill
6532305 March 2003 Hammen
6647341 November 2003 Golub et al.
6658395 December 2003 Barnhill
6714925 March 2004 Barnhill et al.
6760715 July 2004 Barnhill et al.
6789069 September 2004 Barnhill et al.
6882990 April 2005 Barnhill et al.
6944602 September 2005 Cristianini
6996549 February 2006 Zhang et al.
7047137 May 2006 Kasif et al.
7117188 October 2006 Guyon et al.
7299213 November 2007 Cristianini
7318051 January 2008 Weston et al.
7383237 June 2008 Zhang et al.
7444308 October 2008 Guyon et al.
7475048 January 2009 Weston et al.
7542947 June 2009 Guyon et al.
7542959 June 2009 Barnhill et al.
7617163 November 2009 Ben-Hur et al.
7624074 November 2009 Weston et al.
7676442 March 2010 Ben-Hur et al.
7685077 March 2010 Li et al.
7797257 September 2010 Barnhill et al.
7805388 September 2010 Weston et al.
2003/0036081 February 2003 Adorjan
2003/0086593 May 2003 Liu et al.
2004/0005547 January 2004 Boess et al.
2004/0102905 May 2004 Adorjan
2005/0069936 March 2005 Diamond et al.
2005/0181386 August 2005 Diamond et al.
2006/0063156 March 2006 Willman et al.
2006/0074821 April 2006 Cristianini
2010/0256988 October 2010 Barnhill et al.
Other References
HDC nailed the patent, done deal!
Date Transaction Description
09-03-2019 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
08-15-2019 Email Notification
08-14-2019 Issue Notification Mailed
09-03-2019 Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation
08-01-2019 Printer Rush- No mailing
08-01-2019 Printer Rush- No mailing
07-25-2019 Pubs Case Remand to TC
07-23-2019 Dispatch to FDC
07-23-2019 Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
07-19-2019 Issue Fee Payment Verified
07-19-2019 Issue Fee Payment Received
07-08-2019 Applicant Has Filed a Verified Statement of Small Entity Status in Compliance with 37 CFR 1.27
07-03-2019 Electronic Review
07-03-2019 Email Notification
07-03-2019 Mail Notice of Allowance
06-29-2019 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
06-19-2019 Interference dispatch to TC
02-27-2019 Mail Interference Decision - Favorable
02-27-2019 Interference Decision on Priority - Favorable
09-19-2016 Declaration of Interference
09-12-2016 Initial Memorandum under APJ review
06-15-2016 Email Notification
06-15-2016 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
06-14-2016 Correspondence Address Change
07-28-2015 Email Notification
07-28-2015 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
03-13-2015 Email Notification
03-13-2015 Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
02-09-2015 Correspondence Address Change
12-08-2014 Interference Initial Memo Disposal
09-25-2014 Date Forwarded to Examiner
09-24-2014 Response after Non-Final Action
08-21-2014 Mail Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant
08-12-2014 Miscellaneous Action with SSP
08-13-2014 Mail Interview Summary - Examiner Initiated - Telephonic
08-11-2014 Interview Summary - Examiner Initiated - Telephonic
07-27-2014 Date Forwarded to Examiner
07-25-2014 Response after Final Action
07-25-2014 Request for Extension of Time - Granted
02-11-2014 Electronic Review
02-11-2014 Email Notification
02-11-2014 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
02-05-2014 Final Rejection
01-21-2014 Date Forwarded to Examiner
01-09-2014 Response after Non-Final Action
10-09-2013 Electronic Review
10-09-2013 Email Notification
10-09-2013 Mail Non-Final Rejection
09-12-2013 Non-Final Rejection
08-12-2013 Date Forwarded to Examiner
08-08-2013 track 1 OFF
08-08-2013 Appeal Brief Filed
08-09-2013 Appeal Brief Review Complete
06-13-2013 Date Forwarded to Examiner
06-13-2013 Amendment/Argument after Notice of Appeal
06-13-2013 Notice of Appeal Filed
04-10-2013 Email Notification
04-10-2013 Mail Advisory Action (PTOL - 303)
04-05-2013 Advisory Action (PTOL-303)
03-14-2013 Date Forwarded to Examiner
03-13-2013 Response after Final Action
03-13-2013 Electronic Review
03-13-2013 Email Notification
03-13-2013 Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
01-25-2013 Final Rejection
11-29-2012 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
11-06-2012 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
09-09-2012 Date Forwarded to Examiner
09-06-2012 Response after Non-Final Action
06-06-2012 Electronic Review
06-06-2012 Email Notification
06-06-2012 Mail Non-Final Rejection
05-31-2012 Non-Final Rejection
05-15-2012 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
12-16-2011 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
10-26-2011 Email Notification
10-26-2011 Mail Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant
08-17-2011 Affidavit(s) (Rule 131 or 132) or Exhibit(s) Received
08-23-2011 Date Forwarded to Examiner
08-17-2011 Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
08-23-2011 Disposal for a RCE / CPA / R129
08-19-2011 Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant - No Action Count
08-17-2011 Workflow - Request for RCE - Begin
08-16-2011 Pubs Case Remand to TC
07-06-2011 Electronic Review
07-05-2011 Email Notification
07-05-2011 Mail Notice of Allowance
06-29-2011 Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
06-28-2011 Reasons for Allowance
06-21-2011 Date Forwarded to Examiner
06-15-2011 Response after Non-Final Action
05-06-2011 Email Notification
05-05-2011 PG-Pub Issue Notification
04-18-2011 Electronic Review
04-18-2011 Email Notification
04-18-2011 Mail Non-Final Rejection
04-11-2011 Non-Final Rejection
04-11-2011 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
03-21-2011 Information Disclosure Statement considered
03-21-2011 Information Disclosure Statement considered
03-21-2011 Electronic Information Disclosure Statement
03-21-2011 Reference capture on IDS
03-21-2011 Electronic Information Disclosure Statement
03-21-2011 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
03-21-2011 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
01-27-2011 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
01-24-2011 Application Is Now Complete
01-24-2011 Email Notification
01-21-2011 Application Dispatched from OIPE
01-24-2011 Filing Receipt
11-17-2010 Cleared by OIPE CSR
11-11-2010 IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review
11-11-2010 Initial Exam Team nn
Alan, I'm not sure as I'm on the bottom rung of understanding in so much of this but believe if you read the path forward from HDC's 12/944,197 and now HDC's latest patent application 10,402,685 that at least part of the motion 1 by Li was most likely addressed so now we will see if we get the patent. I can see a difference!!!
It may address the following..........The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals -Patentability, l 077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998
btw...if anyone doesn't think HDC isn't aware of this think again!
HDC 322,000 Share traded today. Yes today may suck but we always have tomorrow and you know what day that is?
15:58:22 0.083 1000
15:57:56 0.0833 10000
15:48:07 0.095 2980
15:38:33 0.085 10000
15:38:25 0.0863 10000
15:12:26 0.098 5000
15:08:32 0.09 13000
15:08:30 0.09 3200
15:08:16 0.091 12000
14:43:30 0.098 2800
14:43:30 0.098 2200
14:36:24 0.091 1600
14:36:21 0.091 3400
13:45:52 0.098 20000
13:43:02 0.0916 10000
13:43:02 0.09 16200
12:24:24 0.098 10000
12:23:16 0.0915 12250
12:02:27 0.085 6000
10:03:09 0.098 10400
10:03:09 0.0979 19600
09:58:20 0.081 25000
09:42:59 0.098 20000
09:42:17 0.09545 1570
09:38:54 0.081 16200
09:38:50 0.081 30000
09:36:09 0.098 11800
09:36:09 0.0979 11800
09:34:39 0.098 5000
09:30:06 0.099 5000
Oops...The biggest difference between a patent application and a patent is that an application has not been evaluated on any level, not just for patentability but for basic operability. So an application can be very sound, well written and definitely on its way to a patent, or it can be a completely inoperable, back-of-the-napkin mess that will never become patent. Whatever it is, it will remain part of the public record forever, always popping up in your search results whenever applicable keywords or classifications are searched.
We just gotta hurry up and wait.eom
Hello Allen, you did great in the last couple of weeks with Intel, which I call a real company/stock.
Anyways, I am not thinking about what you may see over in Yahoo about Intel paying $1 billion in damages, I am not even thinking of Intel paying HDC but more in the thought of other corporations working with HDC. As for the SVM/RFE patents I myself until told something else from the company only see HDC with some ability within the BIO/MEDICAL areas involving the remaining patents. No doubt nothing huge but maybe enough money for me to finally leave home ; ) if you know what I mean.
I am pretty sure HDC doesn't want to go to trial period or else we would have seen something by now but rather spread a little sugar is better than soured milk.
I will bet HDC has no intent on trying to force feed various corporations and as for my holdings here...it is show me the proof of what we got, who in hell has ever been able to understand the technology fully.
Our remaining patents are in a box that says SVM-RFE, what is that value worth when it just sits on a shelf and if it isn't just sitting on the shelf then make it known.
Now think about this? Anyone that has been here for years are use to the SVM and I gather sort of the new RFE. Now how in the world do investors come into HDC under such under complicated terms as SVM- RFE?
How do you sell SVM-RFE to new investors when you can't see it or touch it? Very complicated and always has been! This is why I hope in time our CEO can explain what has always been a elusive technology to many of us or at least me.
Now here comes the multi billion dollar question that would serve all that has ever read any HDC message thread in my opinion.
When it comes down to HDC owning patents that involve SVM-RFE or perhaps RFE-SVM just what part do we own? Do we own the basic structure that leads HDC to the statement they made or what.
What is exciting is that there are massive additions to SVM-RFE THAT MANY "OTHER" have modified over the years which would make more corporations bite on some type of royalty. What I am saying is I believe we will obtain miner royalties from many many that will need to use the SVM-RFE vehicle. Remember our patents do what? They enhance it isn't like 20% of any sensor chip or maybe not even involving except in the bio areas.
Some type of consistency with funds coming in may add up in time but I see a lot of phone calls and meetings that must take place to get this rolling and again until the CEO make things clear we are "ONLY" able to enhance - increase efficiency in many areas.
Are we limited to BIO areas only?
Maybe in time our CEO will elaborate about just what do we truly have involving SVM-RFE I mean I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the Wacky Tabacky CEO we once had.
King...from the recent 8-k it say the following
As a result of the issuance of the SVM-RFE Patent, Health Discovery Corporation 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 all SVM-RFE patents. Additionally, Health Discovery Corporation is taking the necessary steps to protect its sole ownership of SVM-RFE patents against infringement.
So between the new website and the above this tells me HDC has every intent on strictly licensing the technologies.
If anyone thinks it will be a piece of cake to try and prove various corporations are using our exact patents in their products etc think again. I figure it this way. We dealt with NeoGenomic Corporation and basically licensed just about everything including the kitchen sink. We had huge contractual writings plus Barnhill and Albitar was in that mix and of course later on our patent Attorneys. Also worth mentioning we had arbitration tied into the contractual agreement. So technically we had something easier than just a hard core lawsuit which was a bit easier route (arbitration agreement.)
Intel??? What does anyone need to say about this? We have heard everything from each other over and over again. Did they/do they/are they presently using the technology in their chips/sensors or other flash memory/ability of sort?
I must say and I think this is important. Remember that our patents were designed to produce bio-marker discovery and them HDC changed direction. If we were smart enough back then we may of caught on to that point, my fault as a investor.
What I think down deep is that HDC has some interest or they would not have done anything as to the website, OH! the website isn't as bad as we thought when you really think about it...what did I just say!!!! OK, it says the following....We’re a group of talented entrepreneurs and mathematicians with a groundbreaking idea that will contribute toward a better tomorrow. We provide proprietary solutions for companies of all sizes and pride ourselves on our unparalleled, dedicated service. Ok, I don't like them saying a few things within but so what? I really dislike (Entrepreneurs) because of obvious reasons and could be 1 reasons why no bio is attached to their names. Another important area to me but who am I is that a company that wants to use the technology isn't doing what? They are not crashing down the doors of HDC to pay them because they want to use the technologies however the web page is still a visible sign no matter what. The offices also may save money and good reasoning for that too.
HDC game plan? makes one wonder and you know I do but as to me pushing and shouting as I did for so long was only a push that will go nowhere. No doubt in my mind that they are working to try and bring in licensing deals but we are going to need help. We must have help at every single turn period and it will cost money directly now or in licensing deals that may have already happen meaning we must give something to get something and what we probably get is not money soon but maybe "others" helping us as we move along. Read above...others?
As for a buyout it didn't look like that after reading the last 8-k now did it. I think we will hear something when it is worth hearing and we are "possibly" able to snatch "hopefully" some type of deal, I really don't sea ; ) the big fish catch but who knows. If we can gain a party that contributes and isn't like the Barnhill shuffle crap we will be fine. What did any of the damn big shots in the bio arena do for us that Barnhill had mentioned for years (absolutely nothing!) Dr. ALbitar has done more for us than any past CEO except for our CEO George McGovern.
OK, now we get down to who is or has scammed us in the past in our thinking. Each investor here has their favorite to pin against the wall right? Anyways is George screwing with us? I sincerely hope not but tend to look at the massive shares that he holds or at least held, hopefully holds. I must say about the so called "D" series shares he talked about that does ruffle my feathers as there are plenty of "C" series, period! I figure during the past 200 days or so that many of those "C" series have come home anyways!
The volume "what the heck" another day another week we will get where we need to go time but how much time right?
Enough of my mouth for one night!
HDC 92,800 shares traded today
13:10:48 0.099 5000
13:06:24 0.095 1000
13:06:23 0.095 6800
12:24:34 0.099 11000
12:24:34 0.0971 10000
12:20:57 0.08 4800
12:20:51 0.08 16200
12:20:48 0.08 1000
12:20:45 0.08 600
12:20:39 0.08 10000
12:20:38 0.08 19400
12:14:43 0.099 5000
09:30:01 0.10 2000
HDC, 119,000 shares traded today.
15:50:55 0.099 650
15:42:34 0.099 2000
15:42:33 0.0971 2000
15:39:30 0.08475 1000
15:31:29 0.099 2000
15:27:37 0.0751 5650 Gap filled
15:27:37 0.08 1250
15:27:37 0.0895 1250
13:59:22 0.099 3200
12:56:32 0.10 20000
12:37:52 0.10 10000
12:24:51 0.095 10000
12:24:51 0.0935 10000
11:40:15 0.095 4000
10:50:25 0.08 500
10:19:47 0.10 5000
09:35:39 0.10 25000
09:31:49 0.10 10000
09:30:10 0.08 5100
09:30:02 0.11 400
I guess so oh well...anyways they can stick the gap where the sun doesn't shine.
I like the trading today but I am still watching ET and CD on bid to see if CD matches or surpasses .08 then action may start on the ask side.
Shame shame China which you already know what I'm thinking as to lots or luck getting them to pay plus their BS about ownership etc. I must step out for an hour but will be back, I plany on checking their patents and also Googles....
Yes I recall us being told that Microsoft among others were playing in our sand box illegally but they also have patents.
Announcement from HDC and Microsoft ought to push us upward too...I think there is more to that than we presently believe...Many of our patents have expired many years ago.
_______________________________________
Hangzhou, China, September 25, 2019 - Alibaba Group (NYSE: BABA) today unveiled its first AI inference chip developed by T-Head under the Alibaba DAMO Academy, an initiative to lead technology development and scientific research.
The high-performance AI inference chip, a neural processing unit (NPU) named Hanguang 800, that specializes in the acceleration of machine learning tasks, was announced at Alibaba Cloud's annual flagship Apsara Computing Conference. It is currently being used internally within Alibaba's business operations, especially in product search and automatic translation on e-commerce sites, personalized recommendations, advertising, and intelligent customer services. These areas require extensive computing power for the AI tasks to optimize the shopping experience.
"The launch of Hanguang 800 is an important step in our pursuit of next-generation technologies, boosting computing capabilities that will drive both our current and emerging businesses while improving energy-efficiency, " said Jeff Zhang, Alibaba Group CTO and President of Alibaba Cloud Intelligence. "In the near future, we plan to empower our clients by providing access through our cloud business to the advanced computing that is made possible by the chip, anytime and anywhere."
A key goal for Alibaba Cloud is to offer a leading technology infrastructure that benefits companies of all sizes and narrows existing gaps in the access to technology, ultimately making the world more inclusive.
Propelled by a self-developed hardware framework, as well as highly-optimized algorithm designs that are tailored for business applications such as retail and logistics in the Alibaba ecosystem, Hanguang 800 has recorded remarkable performance in tests. The single-chip computing performance reached 78,563 IPS at peak moment, while the computation efficiency was 500 IPS/W during the Resnet-50 Inference test. Both performance scores largely outpace the industry average, showcasing advantages underscored by a remarkable balance between powerful computing capabilities and the highest level of computational efficiency.
For example, around one billion product images are uploaded to Taobao, Alibaba's e-commerce site, every day by merchants. It used to take the machine one hour to categorize such a large volume of images, and then tailor search and personalized recommendations to be provided to hundreds of millions of consumers. But with Hanguang 800, it now only takes the machine 5 minutes to complete the same task.
Alibaba's research unit, T-Head - whose Chinese name is "Pintouge," meaning "honey badger" - leads the innovation around chip design for both cloud and edge computing. They are also responsible for nurturing an inclusive edge-to-cloud computing ecosystem by collaborating with global partners in the chip industry. Earlier this year, T-Head debuted XuanTie 910, a high-performance IoT processor based on RISC-V, the open source instruction set architecture (ISA). XuanTie 910 was designed to serve the heavy-duty IoT applications which require high-performance computing, such as AI, networking, gateway, self-driving automobiles and edge servers. Global developers have been able to successfully access certain code within the high-performance processor and leverage this technology to develop prototypes for their own chips.
Unless there is some sort of announcement coming and our stock price needs to be at a certain figure our stock needs to pause and breathe a bit.
274,086 Shares Traded Today
14:54:58 0.11 1167
14:53:54 0.095 9500
14:53:54 0.095 7800
14:45:54 0.095 2200
14:44:57 0.095 10000
14:44:47 0.0965 10000
14:43:22 0.095 50
14:43:11 0.0965 50
14:42:42 0.11 1659
14:42:42 0.11 841
14:42:20 0.10 100
14:41:33 0.10 100
14:40:11 0.11 8459
14:40:11 0.11 541
14:39:49 0.10 100
14:39:15 0.10 100
14:38:51 0.10 100
14:38:07 0.095 100
14:38:04 0.0965 100
12:35:25 0.11 1000
11:42:01 0.11 3000
11:32:56 0.109 14500
11:30:10 0.1097 16000
11:08:55 0.11 36352
11:08:47 0.1099 3000
11:08:41 0.1099 5000
11:00:56 0.109 5500
11:00:45 0.109072 5000
10:55:35 0.109 5000
10:50:12 0.109 14700
10:50:10 0.109 358
10:40:59 0.11 2800
10:35:30 0.101 40000
10:35:14 0.11 10000
10:26:51 0.11 909
10:01:52 0.11 22000
10:01:42 0.11 8000
09:30:44 0.11 15500
09:30:34 0.113 5000
09:30:02 0.11 5000
09:30:00 0.11 2500
Tomorrow will be the third day on the move, it's after 45 minutes after market opens we are up and stay up until 11 we should be out at least for another day. If Wednesday morning same time same place stays up or positive we're set talk later I'm at a meeting.
No doubt we would have never held share price if the Intel news was BS so there is something worth wild to stay and watch. Very interesting. Just maybe those patents are worth far more than we had thought. I recall many years ago (as said prior times) that we were ahead of the world involving SVM with BIO areas. We all know that the rest of the world understands the power of SVM so now we have even more a$$ involving our latest RFE-SVM, SVM-RFE plus I gotta throw our 4 gene biomarkers plus the prostate patents in for more than good looks. "PROSTATE CANCER"
I think someone or some entity is really interested.
Is Intel interested and we wont sell out but rather license the technologies to them? It does sound as if our CEO isn't interested in giving HDC away or maybe the price wasn't right just yet? Why is out stock price rising? No doubt a damn good reason to stick around.
Neogenomic corporation we love you and might forgive you but only under our terms!
Hope this is worth reading must run.......late
Day...omg where have you been! )
++++++++++++++
The bid will move up and take GT out N will move out of the way and CD will again do it to it? Well! maybe?
King I'm fine with slow forward consistency, look see who is on the bid!..CD and they will come into the picture on the ask side. Still watch the combination between ET and CD during the day. I have watched their playing since the beginning of August.
I don't know why N is breathing air but they were something in the late 90's
West coast just gets up earlier, if they don't they miss out on 3 hours of trading, been their done that! CD will take control again just watch..ET jacked up and moved out of the way like Friday..within the next hour just watch!
Newcomer welcome CFGN ...Look OTCX jumped in!
That's it ease into it.eom
No doubt in my mind, George won't be wasting time at the golf course this week?
King that margin call sure meant a lot of peanut butter and jelly ...I mean jam sandwiches ; - )....nice to see MBMoney post here again.
So we were locked in at 7 cents correct? Do you think that is the results of HDC Directors actually buying shares. I recall as you that it was .07 per shares but believe it really came to .068 or .069 per shares anyone have a clue on this? not that it really matters?
Big Beef, I forgot to tell you that I see why the 200 day verses the 150 day average is better. thanks again.
....now if I don't forget but generally don't post as much as I did Friday. With this IHUB - freebie account you get 15 posts but they don't lock you out until the 17th post. I was used to a paid account prior.
Hey there Alan, nice message...just know I have had major medical issues since birth but not to elaborate believe me when I say I understand the power(s) of the mind within the entire spectrum.
Well Stanley, I mean Big Beef! this is another fine mess you got us in I mean me. Hey just want you to know I thank you for the charting aspects. I say this as I didn't even think twice about that but my plan to be somewhat safe would require much more charting knowledge that I recently have. With more charting aspects I might be able to keep a better focus on the future potentials. I didn't have much time today as I was playing around with my Concord grapes actually eating more than anything else.
I believe we could drop back to .08 and settles in as to share price but don't know? Other than the charting I keep on thing about how ET moved out of the way Friday and it was Thursday as I recall when Stonemoney noticed ET at .19 cent too. I am under the impression that the company directors if they wish to buy those shares at .068/.07 that the CEO might be able to do a book entry but I don't have a real clue how if at all how that might affect the stock price. If they are allowed to buy at .07 from ET or maybe dealers and the dealer surplus is running low it would seem the dealers would have to buy millions of more shares and would no longer be able to pick up the shares as cheaply as they did over 6 months ago if not further back then that. So regardless if we get news soon the price would seem to stay consistent at some point. Maybe that point was .07 and we fall back or maybe higher now?
Thanks again for the waking up about charting so now I will take things more seriously in trying to protect my investments or play time. Without $$$ returns I can't play but only look in store windows which sucks.
It's all Elementary, you post bunch of positive stuff instead of negative and we run like hell
Traded shares 9/27/19
09/27 0.11 34262
09/27 0.1099 1000
09/27 0.11 1000
09/27 0.1099 5000
09/27 0.11 5000
09/27 0.105 4000
09/27 0.10425 5000
09/27 0.1025 150000
09/27 0.1025 5000
09/27 0.100125 5000
09/27 0.101 5000
09/27 0.100375 5000
09/27 0.10 800
09/27 0.1002 8072
09/27 0.10 8500
09/27 0.1005 5000
09/27 0.10075 1000
09/27 0.10 2000
09/27 0.0985 2500
09/27 0.085 900
09/27 0.0925 3000
09/27 0.10 3000
09/27 0.094 6000
09/27 0.10 6000
09/27 0.08 8073
09/27 0.08 8072
09/27 0.08 10000
09/27 0.078 10000
09/27 0.08 14700
09/27 0.08 9800
09/27 0.08 5000
09/27 0.075 9431
09/27 0.073 57478
09/27 0.073 1562
09/27 0.0722 3000
09/27 0.07 20000
09/27 0.0706 10000
09/27 0.075 5000
09/27 0.07 22500
09/27 0.07 10000
09/27 0.075 5000
09/27 0.07 46700
09/27 0.07 3000
09/27 0.07 3000
09/27 0.075 1000
09/27 0.075 2000
I'm over in stock charts and don't know what I'm doing? 150 day fine but don't know what I am looking for?
https://stockcharts.com
I was able to see some of the gaps but I don't think you were talking about that? If you have a better charting place post a link w/instruction.
Big Beef, if I get interested enough I may but HDC will need to move far enough for me to come out of retirement and play again. So until I can capitalize on those thoughts it has to be worth wild. It is my loss to look at money as if it were monopoly money until it doesn't come back. This is a fault of mine. I don't have the money to play but the problem is when I do I swing $100k and don't think twice but now I somehow must wise up and value the dollar. Heaviest 3 wk gain $350k largest loss $480k but it just never matters to me unless it doesn't come back home. If HDC moves enough I will sell some to say at least I pulled my expenses. Now looking at 16 plus years with HDC I would need $500k return to feel I made something to handle all the work and heart ache this one has caused me by me not being smart enough to pull the plug.
What gives this is my 18th post today I thought freebie members only were able to post 14-16 per day?
It sure looks to me that we have some heavy news coming soon but if not I just pray we hold the share price at a decent level.
...oh will we make my .105...close? I gotta be right some day?
btw...I like the 9 day better than the 200 day TA
ET is back up running again let's see what command w/CD they have in mind.
Now this is finally nice but when reading you message here I forgot about this being a Friday, I'm smiling but I wonder if you are thinking what I'm thinking? actually too soon but "What day is this? HUMP DAY for our CEO