Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
according to various law opinions found throughout the internet as it relates to our matter/situation, there is still light at the end of the tunnel - just not burning as strongly or brightly as 24 hours ago......
Reversal rate/complexity of the case
Markman provided the means to resolve a larger percentage of infringement cases by final adjudication via summary judgment or settlement between the parties. But for those that plod through the entire trial, an appeal of the claim construction will assuredly follow. Depending upon how the numbers are viewed, the reversal rate on claim construction has consistently ranged 30 – 40%, with some arguing an increasing trend.50 In comparison, the average rate of reversal for other district court decisions is right around 10 %.51 The high rate of reversal is problematic because, while Markman meant to promote early settlements, often times a party will now take into account the idea that they have a strong chance of winning on appeal.52 In addition, the uncertainty in the lower court ruling goes against the principles inferred by Markman.53
The inherent level of complexity involved in patent cases compounds the problem of the high rate of reversal.54 But of even greater significance is the de novo standard
mandated by Cyborg; the CAFC understands the district court has wide discretion on the task of claim construction, but little if no respect need be given any judicial findings of fact relevant to the process.55 In effect, this can relegate laborious aspects such as arguments by the parties (or anything else presented to the district court), as well as any of the court’s findings, to wasted effort.56 A direct result of the high reversal rate, beyond the frustration aspect, is the added expense.57
http://www.porterhedges.com/NewsPublications/portalresource/Publication%20-%20Evolution%20of%20Markman
Just some general info related to our situation and the appeals process within the federal circuit per a patent attorney.....link provided below
One hitch with this seemingly efficient process, however, has been the review, or appeals, process related to a district court’s determination of the meaning of the claim terms. Shortly after the Markman decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., in which the court held that it would review de novo claim construction determinations, and further that the court would not review such claim construction determinations until after a final order, i.e., summary judgment or judgment after trial, has been entered.3 In my experience, while the process of a Markman or claim construction hearing often helps to streamline a patent infringement case, if the parties then have to wait to appeal a possibly erroneous claim construction ruling until the district court enters a summary judgment determination or a judgment after trial, some level of efficiency is lost.
Add to that the fact that several studies, including an earlier study conducted by then Professor Kimberly Moore of George Mason University (now Justice Moore of the Federal Circuit) and a later study conducted by David Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Law at the John Marshall School of Law, suggest that of the cases on appeal for claim construction issues since the time of the Markman decision through about 2007, nearly 40% were found on appeal to have at least one claim term construed incorrectly. Wow, 40%—almost one-half of the cases on appeal had at least one claim term determined to have been construed incorrectly.4 It is safe to assume that at least a number of these cases had involved a trial at the district court level and may have been remanded back to the district court for further proceedings in light of the corrected claim construction. Perhaps not as efficient as we thought, right?5
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=iplr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Daverage%2520appeal%2520time%2520for%2520markman%2520ruling%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26ved%3D0CFUQFjAG%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.marquette.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1145%2526context%253Diplr%26ei%3D_3H3UM7gE468qQHYk4Aw%26usg%3DAFQjCNF7tE5yKAf-QV9vigtf9fZX3VBWrA#search=%22average%20appeal%20time%20markman%20ruling%22
interesting discussion reference tech patents........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3nFf-EB9KQ&feature=player_embedded#!
What DOJ's decision means for AT&T-T-Mobile merger (FAQ)
By: Kent German and Marguerite Reardon August 31, 2011 5:17 PM PDT
Since late March of this year, AT&T's proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile has dominated the U.S. wireless industry. Customers, outside interest groups, and government officials were quick to choose sides, but once AT&T filed its initial papers with the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice in April, the deal was put in the hands of federal regulators. And today, the Feds answered back when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit (PDF) in federal court to block the merger.
Though the Justice Department's decision may sound like a death blow to AT&T's plans, that's actually not the case. It is a major inconvenience by all accounts and the fight is likely to be an uphill battle, but AT&T's dreams may not be dashed completely. In the following FAQ, CNET tells you why.
What exactly is the Justice Department's role in the process of a merger?
The U.S. government does not have the power to approve or disapprove of a merger. Companies are free to merge if they like, but for mergers and acquisitions of a certain size, they are required to notify the government of the transaction. This requirement was established under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which mandates that companies involved in the merger provide the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice with information about the merger before it occurs.
Once the companies have filed their paperwork, the FTC and the Justice Department review the information. The Justice Department looks to see if the proposed merger would violate any antitrust laws, such as the Clayton Act, which prohibits anticompetitive behavior that could harm consumers.
If the Justice Department thinks that the merger violates antitrust laws, it could ask the companies to restructure the deal and make certain concessions to eliminate the antitrust or anticompetitive issues. But if it feels that there is no way to mitigate the antitrust issues, it then sues to enjoin or block the merger.
At that point, the companies involved in the merger can give up and walk away from the merger or they can choose to go to court to fight the lawsuit to prove that the merger will not be anticompetitive.
Related links
• Justice Dept. to block AT&T's T-Mobile deal
• Why the Justice Department means business on AT&T and T-Mobile
• DOJ's statement regarding AT&T and T-Mobile
• ZDNET: Feds aim to block AT&T's T-Mobile purchase: The fallout
• FCC restarts the clock for AT&T, T-Mobile merger
• Full coverage of the merger from CNET
What are the Justice Department's reasons for filing the suit?
According to a statement, the Justice Department said its main concern is how the merger will affect competition, but it went on to say that the deal could result in higher prices, poorer quality services, fewer choices, and fewer innovative products
"The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services," Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole said in a statement. "Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation's wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition."
More interestingly, the agency also called T-Mobile "a disruptive force" in the wireless industry by introducing the world's first Android handset, the T-Mobile G1, and the country's high-speed HSPA+ data network.
So what does the Justice Department's decision mean? Is this the end of the road for the merger?
It's certainly a big roadblock, but it doesn't stop the merger in its tracks completely. And if the FCC approves the transfer of spectrum licenses, the merger could still happen even with a court case pending. It's unlikely though (and somewhat risky) because the court may put a temporary injunction preventing the merger. But that hearing hasn't happened yet.
What is the FCC's role? I thought it had the power to approve or disapprove of the merger?
Like the Justice Department, the FCC can't accept or reject a merger proposal outright either. But for wireless carrier mergers (and those involving radio and TV networks) the FCC gets involved, because it regulates wireless spectrum. Specifically, the FCC grants or denies permission to transfer wireless licenses from one company to another. Since AT&T and T-Mobile have licensed their wireless spectrum from the FCC, it must approve the transfer of those licenses.
And since the whole point of doing a merger between two wireless companies is to combine wireless licenses, if the FCC doesn't approve the license transfers, it doesn't make sense to go through with the merger.
The FCC's review process when a wireless merger is proposed is done separately from the Justice Department. And the two agencies evaluate the mergers based upon different metrics. The Justice Department is looking for any violation of antitrust law. The FCC evaluates whether the deal is in the "public interest." This is a more broad review than the Justice Department's assessment, and it takes into account whether the deal will encourage competition and the deployment of new services, as well as whether it will increase prices or harm consumers through anti-competitive behavior.
What happens if the FCC approves the deal before the DOJ lawsuit is settled?
In theory, if the FCC gives its approval to transfer the wireless licenses, then AT&T could still go ahead with the merger. The danger is that if AT&T eventually loses its case in court to the Justice Department, it would have to unwind the transaction.
Finally, if the FCC approves the merger, one remaining sticking point will be how AT&T would divest of overlapping or redundant spectrum licenses. Earlier this month, CNET's Roger Cheng reported that AT&T could divest of more than $8 billion in assets if the merger goes through.
What if the FCC rejects the deal? Would the transaction be dead?
If the FCC said it doesn't see that the merger is in the best interest of consumers, it could reject the deal. Then AT&T would not be able to transfer the T-Mobile licenses and use that spectrum. So essentially, the deal would be dead. But AT&T could also appeal any decision made by the FCC.
How has AT&T reacted to the suit? What can AT&T do from here?
Of course, AT&T isn't happy. In a statement to CNET, senior executive vice president and general counsel Wayne Watts said the company was "surprised" given the previous meetings it held with the Justice Department. Watts also reiterated AT&T's long-established argument that the merger would boost job creation, alleviate a wireless spectrum crunch, and expand 4G deployment. "We believe facts will guide any final decision and the facts are clear," he said.
At this point, AT&T says it will fight the suit in court. And if it wins, the merger could still move forward, provided the FCC says yes. Of course, the FCC could reject to the transfer of licenses, but AT&T could appeal that decision as well. Another alternative is that AT&T could change the terms of the deal, though that it's unlikely to happen at this point.
What are T-Mobile's options?
Marguerite Reardon will explore that topic in a coming post. We'll say here, though, that T-Mobile and its parent company aren't pleased, either. In a statement to Ina Fried at AllThingsD, Deutsche Telekom Executive Vice President Philipp Schindera said the company "is very disappointed by the DOJ's action," and that it "will join AT&T in defending the contemplated merger against the complaint in court."
What does it mean for customers?
For now, it means nothing. For both AT&T and T-Mobile subscribers, it's business as usual until the merger is formally approved or rejected by the FCC. And even if it is approved, any changes wouldn't trickle down to T-Mobile or AT&T customers for a long time.
Sprint has forcefully opposed the merger. How has that carrier reacted
It's safe to say that Sprint is ecstatic. Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Vonya B. McCann called it a "decisive victory for consumers, competition, and our country."
From almost the moment the merger was announced in March, Sprint has argued that the marriage would harm competition and consumers by leading to higher prices and poorer service in the wireless industry, impact America's economic growth, and stifle innovation by creating a duopoly between Verizon Wireless and AT&T. Considering that the Justice Department cited some of those very reasons in its suit, Sprint's lobbying campaign, particularly its points on AT&T's spectrum claims, appears to have paid off. On the downside, the Justice Department's decision also diminishes Sprint's chances of scooping up T-Mobile. The arguments the Justice Department will use to argue against AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile may also apply to an acquisition by Sprint.
Does AT&T have any other government support?
Though some federal lawmakers have come out against the deal, it has won support from 26 state governors, 11 state attorneys general, and several members of Congress. None of those parties, however, has any official power to approve or deny the deal.
This sounds like a big legal mess. Is this court case likely to drag on for a long time before there's a decision?
It's hard to say how long this whole process may take. On the one hand, the federal courts generally try to resolve these issues quickly so that the companies involved in the litigation can go on with their business. Sometimes it can take as little as six months to resolve the case. The Oracle/PeopleSoft litigation is an example of a speedy case.
But since the FCC must offer its approval anyway, and the agency has said it will take about a year to complete its review, the court may give the Justice Department more time to build its case against AT&T. The longer the FCC delays in making its own determination, the longer the Justice Department is likely to have to research and build its case.
What is somewhat unusual about what's happening with the AT&T/T-Mobile deal is the timing of the Justice Department's lawsuit. Typically, the Justice Department waits as long as possible to file such claims, according to a lawyer who has worked for the agency but didn't want to be named. The merger was only announced in March. For the Justice Department to come to a decision to file suit in August, essentially suggesting that the agency sees no way that concessions can be made to make this deal palatable, is unusual, he said.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20099966-94/what-dojs-decision-means-for-at-t-t-mobile-merger-faq/
i have purchased this stock within this calendar year through TD Ameritrade which apparently, according to the guidance provided by state of ny comptroller pdf, does not concern someone in my situation... just my own opinion - link attached to draw your own conclusion....
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/other/unclaimedfunds.pdf
A Handbook for Reporters of Unclaimed Funds, which is published by
the State Comptroller, provides a detailed listing of property type and reporting requirements and is available at the following website:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/ouf/oufhandbook/money.htm.
If contact between a custodian of abandoned property and the legal
owner has not occurred during the designated amount of time, the
custodian must report the details of its holdings in an annual report submitted to the State Comptroller. The following types of property must be reported as abandoned if no contact has been established with the owner(s) within:
* Five years for bank accounts, money orders, gift
certificates, vendor checks, stock and dividends or
court funds,
* Three years for insurance policies and property from
brokers/dealers, credit balances, payroll checks or
bond interest,
* Two years for utility deposits, and
* One year for uncashed, New York State-issued checks.
Current reporting requirements designate the month that specific types of entities must turn over abandoned property to the Comptroller. The month for reporting is generally determined by the type of entity holding the property, although, in some cases (e.g., travelers checks), the month for reporting is determined by the type of abandoned property.
Reader Forum: AT&T Mobility and T-Mobile USA – for better or worse?
May 30 2011 - 6:00 am ET | Dan McBride, Senior Director of Product and Solutions Marketing, Stoke | RCR Wireless News
inShare1
Editor's Note: Welcome to our weekly Reader Forum section. In an attempt to broaden our interaction with our readers we have created this forum for those with something meaningful to say to the wireless industry. We want to keep this as open as possible, but maintain some editorial control so as to keep it free of commercials or attacks. Please send along submissions for this section to our editors at:dmeyer@rcrwireless.com or tford@rcrwireless.com.
In AT&T Inc.’s Federal Communications Commission filing, they painted a bleak picture of network capacity challenges, spectrum shortage, and the prospect of more dropped calls, slower speeds and fewer advanced applications if the acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc. does not go through. More questions than answers are raised: Can we really believe there is cause for optimism with the merger, or does everybody lose? Will consumers see better quality of service and lower costs, or tighter bandwidth caps? How will the new entity work with regulators and suppliers? Does this solve the spectrum shortage? The only certain thing about the proposed deal is that if AT&T doesn’t adopt T-Mobile USA’s commitment to innovation, then all the pessimists will have been right.
Despite the possible merger, T-Mobile USA ads continue to bash AT&T Mobility, to the delight of naysayers. There is widespread concern that, if T-Mobile USA’s ties to Europe are severed, the innovation associated with those links will also disappear. Sprint Nextel Corp. is vocal on that topic. Representative Greg Walden, the chairman of the House subcommittee on communications and technology, questions whether the move would diminish the “vibrant and competitive” nature of the wireless market, saying that with fewer players there’s less opportunity for the type of creative innovation and invention that has previously been typical of this segment.
In a popularity contest, T-Mobile USA wins hands down. They consistently score higher than AT&T Mobility for customer service and satisfaction and it’s a moot point whether that culture and competence can be transferred to the larger organization. T-Mobile USA has a reputation for innovation whereas AT&T Mobility is still reeling from the “iPhone effect,” and a public perception of dropped calls, high prices and ineffective data service.
T-Mobile USA’s leading role in Deutsche Telekom AG’s near field communication-based “mobile wallet” initiative, announced at Mobile World Congress this February, has been widely publicized, with initial rollouts in Germany and Poland scheduled for this year and the United States following in 2012. If the U.S. rollout continues as planned despite the acquisition, AT&T Mobility could claw back some reputation as an industry leader. Certainly, AT&T Mobility has something of a vested interest in NFC since they partnered with Deutsche Telekom and Verizon Wireless in the original Isis NFC joint venture. If the NFC initiative falls off the schedule, though, doom-mongers will take this as validation.
While T-Mobile USA does indeed have a history of innovation, it hasn’t always sustained this leadership over the long term. T-Mobile USA broke boundaries when they backed the BlackBerry, promoting it as a universal business tool and riding high on its widespread adoption as an extension to the enterprise. On the other hand, the rise of the iPhone took some of the shine off this leadership.
Then there’s universal mobile access. Four years ago, T-Mobile USA promoted its Wi-Fi/cellular hybrid service as the answer to spotty network connections. These days, with flat-rate, lower-cost voice plans widely available, the usefulness of UMA has dropped off to the point where T-Mobile USA is only making it available on a few phone models. However, T-Mobile USA is credited with the rapid rise to popularity of the Wi-Fi hotspot, and their deal with Starbucks did much to raise the company’s profile. Looking to the future, though, AT&T Mobility’s espousal of Wi-Fi offload as a coverage strategy for high usage areas and T-Mobile USA’s status as a first mover in hotspot use suggests the possibility of interesting developments if the merger does go through. AT&T Mobility may be considering using T-Mobile USA’s spectrum to leverage carrier aggregation technology to increase LTE speeds and capacity. It is also rumored that the operator may follow T-Mobile USA’s Wi-Fi calling strategy to expand its existing Wi-Fi network in key markets, and enhance the availability and resiliency of their networks.
Challenging the vendor community
Unfavorable observers suggest that the principal losers from the deal would be U.S. consumers, who have benefited from T-Mobile USA’s aggressive voice and data pricing; some phone handset makers; and network equipment suppliers. There is an upside in this, however – except perhaps for some of the legacy vendors.
There is a faction supporting the view that consolidation in the U.S. market is the only way to improve both infrastructure and prices. The potential benefits of combining the two companies’ assets include bigger data center capacity, better network density and more available spectrum. Even T-Mobile USA’s 3G phone users, initially losers because they’ll need to replace those devices, may do better in the long run with AT&T Mobility’s plans to rearrange how T-Mobile USA’s cell towers work. The airwaves they use for third-generation services, or 3G, will be repurposed for 4G, which is faster. Handset manufacturers would certainly benefit from this transition.
There is concern that consumers may not benefit from lower prices with a larger entity, but the combined company would have sufficient heft to challenge its vendors on many counts. In its expanded form, AT&T Mobility would have more opportunity to influence pricing among its suppliers. Furthermore, they could become a game-changer by being more aggressive in setting a business agenda for technology vendors to support, rather than letting existing technology dictate the way that mobile broadband evolves.
But the mobile data explosion is forcing the industry to rely more and more on innovation as a way out of the crisis. Maintaining innovation among operators and vendors is key to improving service delivery, pricing, and quality. The urgent need for solutions designed specifically for future-focused networks is propelling new players into key operator deployments and opening opportunities for fresh thinking across the whole spectrum of data service delivery solutions. An operator with power, vision and a viewpoint on how the world of 50 billion connected devices should be shaped could drive sweeping innovations in the U.S. mobile broadband market. There’s a possibility that, with a focus on the future and the business issues it needs to solve, AT&T Mobility could be that operator.
http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20110530/READERFORUM/110509932/1082/reader-forum-att-mobility-and-t-mobile-usa-8211-for-better-or
MUST READ............
NextGen Voice
May 13, 2011
Technologies and Strategies for the Mobile Broadband Capacity Crunch
By TMCnet Special Guest
Dan McBride, Product and Solutions Marketing Director, Stoke
The sheer scale of mobile broadband uptake is breathtaking: in less than five years’ time, it’s estimated that worldwide users will be accessing mobile services via 50 billion connected devices. In response, mobile broadband operators are accelerating the search for new solutions.
That’s just one part of the challenge. At a fundamental level, the industry is shifting its emphasis from building revenues by customer acquisition to a service-based revenue improvement model. Here, the provision of value-added services for users and carrier customers becomes an even more important factor in generating revenues, maintaining the user base, and increasing ARPU.
User-Operator Disconnect
In this environment, there are still disconnects between vendor strategies and operator requirements. User behavior and expectations for the mobile broadband network have irrevocably changed, bringing opportunities as well as issues in the aftermath. It’s disconcerting to see mobile operators behaving as if they can turn back the clock with punitive pricing geared at curbing usage while they work out their network overload problems behind the scenes. Time is running short: new feature phones offer rich multimedia experiences and even the ability to maintain two or more connections at once, and the rising tide of cloud computing and usage signals yet another mammoth burden on the mobile data network. Old technology cannot be adapted to this new reality. New thinking must be applied to support both user demand for mobile data, and the transition to new business models.
Identifying the Problem
With overload occurring both on the control plane and on the data plane, the planning and investment implications for 3G networks will continue to be problematic even while the transition to LTE and 4G is touted as a solution to all network woes. Let’s be honest: the wholesale transition to LTE will be long-drawn-out, taking anything up to 12 years if we look at what has happened with previous generational changes. Meanwhile, operators cannot look solely to next-generation architectures to solve current problems.
Understanding the User
How does a mobile broadband operator administer usage-based pricing and maintain competitiveness when always-on is the order of the day? Most social users have difficulty working out what a Gigabit actually means yet their phone can automatically download 25MB of data in a text or email. Excessive restriction of consumer usage is a scenario for damagingly high customer churn. Tomorrow’s revenue streams must come from understanding the customer.
Infrastructure options such as increasing bandwidth, larger network elements or even partial transitions to LTE are like creating an extra lane on a busy highway. They provide a temporary solution, but don’t address all the underlying issues because even LTE networks won’t be able to cope with the exponential growth in demand for mobile data - a surge that cannot be addressed with linear solutions. Data management solutions must be surgical, in the sense that they can be applied with great precision to specific data traffic types, and should include a variety of offload options
Offloading: The New Imperative
While the usual techniques for expanding capacity in the RAN, backhaul and core networks, together with traffic optimization solutions are holding back the floodwaters, they will not do so for very long. Traffic growth is just too great. Spectrum capacity will run out (and/or services will suffer), costs of continual expansion of core network and backhaul capacity will undermine operator profitability. Operators are all juggling with the need to divert non-essential traffic off of their networks in order to protect the performance and throughput of these vital assets. Offload is seen as the answer. Pundits including FCC chief Julius Genachowski are focusing on Wi-Fi, noting how well it works in adding unlicensed spectrum to the broadband mix and making it possible to offload as much as 40% of traffic from carriers' networks. But Wi-Fi has its downsides as well as benefits, and is not the only option.
“The iPhone Ruined Everything”
Offload has come to mean many confusing things, but at heart it’s all about helping operators deal with unimaginable traffic growth without buying multiple, very expensive items of equipment. The problem started with the emergence of the feature phone, exemplified by the often-maligned iPhone, whose multimedia capabilities and user-friendly interfaces drove adoption, application development and data traffic at a rate that left operators standing. Content optimization vendors were quick to step up to the plate, helping to squeeze down the content of the traffic to a rate that 3G networks can handle. Surely it’s better to deliver poor quality video than none at all? Hmmm.
Next came the introduction of two alternative solutions: HSPA+, which some call 4G, and Wi-Fi, which really signaled the birth of the whole offload concept. This stage also included the beginning of spectrum re-use and the launch of femtocells and picocells, where backhaul is offloaded rather than the radio network. This latter is an essential element in the LTE network.
As we see it, the immediate future of mobile data traffic will depend on path optimization, where the 3G hierarchies of data traffic are broken in favor of identifying and selecting specific types of traffic, content, and even devices, and creating new paths - outside the operator network core – for access to and delivery of content. Further down the road, it is all but inevitable that the mobile data network will become a fully distributed environment that behaves like the Internet today, with no central core.
There are three principal offload approaches. Of these, Mobile Data Offload, or IuPS Breakout (pioneered by Stoke in 2010 and since attracting a substantial body of emulators) is the only option providing the ability to deliver precise control over specific types of traffic while selectively diverting traffic streams away from the data core infrastructure to the Internet. This technique is incorporated into the 3GPP working group looking at local IP access and selective traffic offload (LIPA/SIPTO). As this approach matures, more focus is being trained on its role in improving the mobile Internet experience but distributing and managing content and functionality at the edge of the operator network, closer to the user. Iu-ps Breakout supports the path optimization approach, enabling functions to be located right next to the RNC rather than close to the core, even in LTE networks.
Femtocell offload is a ‘converged’ voice and data solution designed primarily to deliver improved coverage, though more and more is being considered as a cornerstone of an offload and/or spectrum re-use strategy. The challenge for femtocell is the cost of the CPE. Unless it delivers additional services, will subscribers pay directly for the operator’s network build out?
Wi-Fi offload has moved rapidly to the forefront of offload discussions since it relieves pressure on the most costly component of the mobile network, the RAN. This approach uses free spectrum, is delivered on proven technology, and is available and ubiquitous on mobile devices. It’s even more in the news following Apple’s introduction of the iPhone 4, which offers video calling via Wi-Fi only: a strong message to users, operators and developers that Wi-Fi is the logical – and presumed to be available – choice for bandwidth-heavy wireless applications. There are, however, several ways to incorporate Wi-Fi access into a mobile operators’ service mix, and choosing the right solution can have long term implications.
The UMA/GAN and WLAN Interworking products and standards have been available for many years and provide a vetted blueprint for embracing unlicensed Wi-Fi spectrum into an operators service mix. However, they have never achieved mainstream acceptance. Even with today’s widely acknowledged data overload challenges, these solutions are not at the top of the list. Cited reasons include the complexity of integration with core network systems (e.g. HLR, GGSN, etc.) and mobile equipment complexities. All of these challenges are solvable, but the motivation to deliver the solution is not there today.
An alternative to these 3GPP standard Wi-Fi solutions is simply to allow the mobile equipment to connect to any WiFi network and access desired content over the fixed line operator network. Since most Wi-Fi-connected users – most mobile data users in general – primarily consume content from Internet, this ‘unmanaged Wi-Fi’ is the simplest to deploy and manage for the mobile operator. Problem solved, right? Well, maybe.
Managed Wi-Fi Offload
Unmanaged Wi-Fi offload presents a particular challenge to both content providers and operators as the Wi-Fi connections are unrecognized by the mobile network infrastructure, making it difficult to track usage and market and sell new services to them while connected over Wi-Fi. This can significantly impact mobile content and other revenues. An untethered customer is basically not yours any longer, and unmanaged/unmonitored offload doesn’t allow for monetizing those sessions or even to retain those customer relationships.
What is the long-term value of a completely unmanaged offload solution if it means that operators have no opportunity to market new services to users? Moreover, unmanaged Wi-Fi subscribers will often have a better Internet experience than when connected via the 3G network, and with usage untracked and ‘free’, subscribers will seek out Wi-Fi more and more. This will set a preference for Wi-Fi among mobile users, putting downward pricing pressure on the 3G service and reducing the time users are connected via 3G and available to consume for-fee mobile services. There is a better way to embrace Wi-Fi access, with managed Wi-Fi offload.
If operators hope to include WiFi usage in their pre-paid subscriber byte limit plans or expect to develop additional revenue via advertising, content, or network services, then they have to - at the very least - know what their customers are doing even when they have been offloaded to a Wi-Fi network. Carriers need to maintain visibility and control over Wi-Fi connected subscribers to avoid the pitfalls of unmanaged Wi-Fi, and do so while minimizing mobile equipment modification and core network integration. The difference between managed and unmanaged Wi-Fi offload is the placement of an intelligent, session-aware gateway through which the subscriber’s Wi-Fi session traverses on its way to the Internet. This gateway then reports on usage by subscriber back to the mobile operator network for use in gathering market intelligence or to support usage quota tracking regardless of which wireless technology is used. The managed Wi-Fi offload gateway also provides some session control, which will be even more important in the near future when mobile equipment is capable of maintaining a RAN and a WiFi connection to the network, providing operators with the means to determine based on network conditions which radio network to send the requested data. This enables the operator to balance network asset management and mobile device battery life to deliver the best user experience.
Conclusion
In attempting to address the explosion of demand for mobile broadband data, the operator world is being drawn to investigate new marketing and technology solutions. It’s an exciting moment in the history of communications, with the potential to bring operator and customer into a close and mutually beneficial relationship. Operators need to optimize traffic on the network to meet both user needs and their objectives, and offload needs to take its place as part of the phalanx of pragmatic, non-linear solutions supporting the advancing tide of mobile data usage.
http://next-generation-communications.tmcnet.com/topics/nextgen-voice/articles/174397-technologies-strategies-the-mobile-broadband-capacity-crunch.htm
Hopefully this individual is part of "Team Calypso" when/if Calypso is engaged in "potential strategic transactions." (see latest 8K)
http://www.buchalter.com/bt/index.php?action=Show&AttyID=253&option=com_content&task=view&id=152&Itemid=134
AIMHO
n a Q&A with The Washington Post recently, AT&T executive Jim Cicconi said that "without additional spectrum, by the fall of next year, we will be significantly constrained in New York City and elsewhere."
.... IMHO it appears that Calypso and its ASNAP technology would only stand to benefit from this current/future sector dynamic....
FCC starts the clock on AT&T/T-Mobile merger
(CNET)
Proposed $39 billion merger would reshape wireless telecommunications, opposition is expected
By Marguerite Reardon
The Federal Communications Commission has formally started the process for reviewing the proposed $39 billion merger between AT&T and T-Mobile USA that was announced last month.
The FCC has posted its public notice that establishes procedural rules for the review process and will allow the public to weigh in on the proposed merger. AT&T and T-Mobile will file their formal applications by the end of the month as the FCC considers transferring wireless licenses.
The agency is still not discussing specifics of the review process, but earlier today it held a press conference in which it explained broadly how the agency will evaluate the deal. Specifically, the FCC will do two things. First it has to determine if the deal will meet specific requirements in the Communications Act and FCC rules. And second it will determine if the merger is in the public interest.
The agency will work in conjunction with the Department of Justice, which will be evaluating the merger to ensure it doesn't violate antitrust laws.
For the FCC its "public interest" evaluation will include things such as how the merger will affect competition. This is broader than the standard antitrust review and will consider whether the deal will encourage the deployment of new services.
The FCC will use a test called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to measure concentration in a particular market. The commission will also evaluate spectrum coverage, and it will look at how much spectrum is available in certain markets for mobile services. It will evaluate what percentage of that spectrum is held by AT&T and T-Mobile.
AT&T has argued that the T-Mobile spectrum will help it keep up with growing demand for wireless data services. The company plans to use T-Mobile's AWS spectrum acquired in 2006 for its 4G LTE network. AT&T will also use spectrum it acquired in the 2008 700MHz auction for this network as well. Specifically, AT&T says that the T-Mobile spectrum will help the company alleviate congestion in already crowded markets such as New York City.
In a Q&A with The Washington Post recently, AT&T executive Jim Cicconi said that "without additional spectrum, by the fall of next year, we will be significantly constrained in New York City and elsewhere."
But consumer groups argue that AT&T has plenty of unused spectrum. They also say that if the deal is approved, that pricing will go up. T-Mobile is considered a low-cost provider of wireless service. In fact, yesterday the company announced an "unlimited" calling, texting, and data usage plan--which is in fact limited to 2GB of data per month--for $80 per month. This is $20 less per month less than Sprint, its closest competitor. Meanwhile, a comparable plan from AT&T, which also limits data to 2GB and charges customers if they go over that limit, is $115 a month.
To help ensure the public interest, the FCC may require certain conditions for the approval of the merger. The agency imposed conditions on the Verizon-Alltel merger and the merger between Comcast and NBC Universal. While those conditions are supposed to help the deal meet public-interest goals, they do expire after a certain period of time. Some of these conditions may require AT&T to adhere to certain Net neutrality regulations, as was the case in the Comcast-NBCU merger, or it may require the company to divest some of its spectrum and customers in certain markets, like the agency required in the Verizon-Alltel deal.
If the FCC finds that the deal is not in the public interest, a hearing will be held before an administrative judge.
The FCC hasn't outlined a specific timetable for reviewing the merger. But the general rule of thumb is that the agency tries to complete its process within 180 days. But most experts believe the merger will take anywhere between a year and 18 months. The time clock on the merger begins after AT&T and T-Mobile have filed their applications.
Consumer groups and Sprint Nextel, the third-largest wireless operator in the country, oppose the deal and want regulators to block the deal. Congress is expected to weigh in on the debate as well. There is a hearing scheduled for May 11 before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/14/tech/cnettechnews/main20053997.shtml
AT&T to Acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom
AT&T (NYSE:T)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Sunday 20 March 2011
Click Here for more AT&T Charts.
AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T) and Deutsche Telekom AG (FWB: DTE) today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which AT&T will acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom in a cash-and-stock transaction currently valued at approximately $39 billion. The agreement has been approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies.
AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile USA provides an optimal combination of network assets to add capacity sooner than any alternative, and it provides an opportunity to improve network quality in the near term for both companies’ customers. In addition, it provides a fast, efficient and certain solution to the impending exhaustion of wireless spectrum in some markets, which limits both companies’ ability to meet the ongoing explosive demand for mobile broadband.
With this transaction, AT&T commits to a significant expansion of robust 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) deployment to 95 percent of the U.S. population to reach an additional 46.5 million Americans beyond current plans – including rural communities and small towns. This helps achieve the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and President Obama’s goals to connect “every part of America to the digital age.” T-Mobile USA does not have a clear path to delivering LTE.
“This transaction represents a major commitment to strengthen and expand critical infrastructure for our nation’s future,” said Randall Stephenson, AT&T Chairman and CEO. “It will improve network quality, and it will bring advanced LTE capabilities to more than 294 million people. Mobile broadband networks drive economic opportunity everywhere, and they enable the expanding high-tech ecosystem that includes device makers, cloud and content providers, app developers, customers, and more. During the past few years, America’s high-tech industry has delivered innovation at unprecedented speed, and this combination will accelerate its continued growth.”
Stephenson continued, “This transaction delivers significant customer, shareowner and public benefits that are available at this level only from the combination of these two companies with complementary network technologies, spectrum positions and operations. We are confident in our ability to execute a seamless integration, and with additional spectrum and network capabilities, we can better meet our customers’ current demands, build for the future and help achieve the President’s goals for a high-speed, wirelessly connected America.”
Deutsche Telekom Chairman and CEO René Obermann said, “After evaluating strategic options for T-Mobile USA, I am confident that AT&T is the best partner for our customers, shareholders and the mobile broadband ecosystem. Our common network technology makes this a logical combination and provides an efficient path to gaining the spectrum and network assets needed to provide T-Mobile customers with 4G LTE and the best devices. Also, the transaction returns significant value to Deutsche Telekom shareholders and allows us to retain exposure to the U.S. market.”
As part of the transaction, Deutsche Telekom will receive an equity stake in AT&T that, based on the terms of the agreement, would give Deutsche Telekom an ownership interest in AT&T of approximately 8 percent. A Deutsche Telekom representative will join the AT&T Board of Directors.
Competition and Pricing
The U.S. wireless industry is one of the most fiercely competitive markets in the world and will remain so after this deal. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where a large majority of consumers can choose from five or more wireless providers in their local market. For example, in 18 of the top 20 U.S. local markets, there are five or more providers. Local market competition is escalating among larger carriers, low-cost carriers and several regional wireless players with nationwide service plans. This intense competition is only increasing with the build-out of new 4G networks and the emergence of new market entrants.
The competitiveness of the market has directly benefited consumers. A 2010 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) states the overall average price (adjusted for inflation) for wireless services declined 50 percent from 1999 to 2009, during a period which saw five major wireless mergers.
Addresses wireless spectrum challenges facing AT&T, T-Mobile USA, their customers, and U.S. policymakers
This transaction quickly provides the spectrum and network efficiencies necessary for AT&T to address impending spectrum exhaust in key markets driven by the exponential growth in mobile broadband traffic on its network. AT&T’s mobile data traffic grew 8,000 percent over the past four years and by 2015 it is expected to be eight to 10 times what it was in 2010. Put another way, all of the mobile traffic volume AT&T carried during 2010 is estimated to be carried in just the first six to seven weeks of 2015. Because AT&T has led the U.S. in smartphones, tablets and e-readers – and as a result, mobile broadband – it requires additional spectrum before new spectrum will become available. In the long term, the entire industry will need additional spectrum to address the explosive growth in demand for mobile broadband.
Improves service quality for U.S. wireless customers
AT&T and T-Mobile USA customers will see service improvements - including improved voice quality - as a result of additional spectrum, increased cell tower density and broader network infrastructure. At closing, AT&T will immediately gain cell sites equivalent to what would have taken on average five years to build without the transaction, and double that in some markets. The combination will increase AT&T’s network density by approximately 30 percent in some of its most populated areas, while avoiding the need to construct additional cell towers. This transaction will increase spectrum efficiency to increase capacity and output, which not only improves service, but is also the best way to ensure competitive prices and services in a market where demand is extremely high and spectrum is in short supply.
Expands 4G LTE deployment to 95 percent of U.S. population – urban and rural areas
This transaction will directly benefit an additional 46.5 million Americans – equivalent to the combined populations of the states of New York and Texas – who will, as a result of this combination, have access to AT&T’s latest 4G LTE technology. In terms of area covered, the transaction enables 4G LTE deployment to an additional 1.2 million square miles, equivalent to 4.5 times the size of the state of Texas. Rural and smaller communities will substantially benefit from the expansion of 4G LTE deployment, increasing the competitiveness of the businesses and entrepreneurs in these areas.
Increases AT&T’s investment in the U.S.
The acquisition will increase AT&T’s infrastructure investment in the U.S. by more than $8 billion over seven years. Expansion of AT&T’s 4G LTE network is an important foundation for the next wave of innovation and growth in mobile broadband, ensuring the U.S. continues to lead the world in wireless technology and availability. It makes T-Mobile USA, currently a German-owned U.S. telecom network, part of a U.S.-based company.
An impressive, combined workforce
Bringing AT&T and T-Mobile USA together will create an impressive workforce that is best positioned to compete in today’s global economy. Post-closing, AT&T intends to tap into the significant knowledge and expertise held by employees of both AT&T and T-Mobile USA to succeed. AT&T is the only major U.S. wireless company with a union workforce, offering leading wages, benefits, training and development for employees. The combined company will continue to have a strong employee and operations base in the Seattle area.
Consistent with AT&T’s track record of value-enhancing acquisitions
AT&T has a strong track record of executing value-enhancing acquisitions and expects to create substantial value for shareholders through large, straightforward synergies with a run rate of more than $3 billion, three years after closing onward (excluding integration costs). The value of the synergies is expected to exceed the purchase price of $39 billion. Revenue synergies come from opportunities to increase smartphone penetration and data average revenue per user, with cost savings coming from network efficiencies, subscriber and support savings, reduced churn and avoided capital and spectrum expenditures.
The transaction will enhance margin potential and improve the company’s long-term revenue growth potential as it benefits from a more robust mobile broadband platform for new services.
Additional financial information
The $39 billion purchase price will include a cash payment of $25 billion with the balance to be paid using AT&T common stock, subject to adjustment. AT&T has the right to increase the cash portion of the purchase price by up to $4.2 billion with a corresponding reduction in the stock component, so long as Deutsche Telekom receives at least a 5 percent equity ownership interest in AT&T.
The number of AT&T shares issued will be based on the AT&T share price during the 30-day period prior to closing, subject to a 7.5 percent collar; there is a one-year lock-up period during which Deutsche Telekom cannot sell shares.
The cash portion of the purchase price will be financed with new debt and cash on AT&T’s balance sheet. AT&T has an 18-month commitment for a one-year unsecured bridge term facility underwritten by J.P. Morgan for $20 billion. AT&T assumes no debt from T-Mobile USA or Deutsche Telekom and continues to have a strong balance sheet.
The transaction is expected to be earnings (excluding non-cash amortization and integration costs) accretive in the third year after closing. Pro-forma for 2010, this transaction increases AT&T’s total wireless revenues from $58.5 billion to nearly $80 billion, and increases the percentage of AT&T’s total revenues from wireless, wireline data and managed services to approximately 80 percent.
This transaction will allow for sufficient cash flow to support AT&T’s dividend. AT&T has increased its dividend for 27 consecutive years, a matter decided by AT&T’s Board of Directors.
Conditions
The acquisition is subject to regulatory approvals, a reverse breakup fee in certain circumstances, and other customary regulatory and other closing conditions. The transaction is expected to close in approximately 12 months.
Advisors
Greenhill & Co., J.P. Morgan and Evercore Partners acted as financial advisors and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Arnold & Porter, and Crowell & Moring provided legal advice to AT&T.
Conference Call/Webcast
On Monday, March 21, 2011, at 8 a.m. ET, AT&T Inc. will host a live video and audio webcast presentation regarding its announcement to acquire T-Mobile USA. Links to the webcast and accompanying documents will be available on AT&T's Investor Relations website. Please log in 15 minutes ahead of time to test your browser and register for the call.
For dial-in access, please dial +1 (888) 517-2464 within the U.S. or +1 (630) 827-6816 outside the U.S. after 7:30 a.m. ET. Enter passcode 8442095# to join or ask the conference call operator for the AT&T Investor Relations event.
The webcast will be available for replay on AT&T’s Investor Relations website on March 21, 2011, starting at 12:30 p.m. ET through April 21, 2011. An archive of the conference call will also be available during this time period. To access the recording, please dial +1 (877) 870-5176 within the U.S. or +1 (858) 384-5517 outside the U.S. and enter reservation code 29362481#.
Transaction Website
For more information on the transaction, including background information and factsheets, visit www.MobilizeEverything.com.
About AT&T
AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) is a premier communications holding company. Its subsidiaries and affiliates – AT&T operating companies – are the providers of AT&T services in the United States and around the world. With a powerful array of network resources that includes the nation’s fastest mobile broadband network, AT&T is a leading provider of wireless, Wi-Fi, high speed Internet, voice and cloud-based services. A leader in mobile broadband and emerging 4G capabilities, AT&T also offers the best wireless coverage worldwide of any U.S. carrier, offering the most wireless phones that work in the most countries. It also offers advanced TV services under the AT&T U-verse® and AT&T ¦DIRECTV brands. The company’s suite of IP-based business communications services is one of the most advanced in the world. In domestic markets, AT&T Advertising Solutions and AT&T Interactive are known for their leadership in local search and advertising.
Additional information about AT&T Inc. and the products and services provided by AT&T subsidiaries and affiliates is available at http://www.att.com. This AT&T news release and other announcements are available at http://www.att.com/newsroom and as part of an RSS feed at www.att.com/RSS. Or follow our news at @ATT.
About Deutsche Telekom
Deutsche Telekom is one of the world's leading integrated telecommunications companies with around 129 million mobile customers, approximately 36 million fixed-network lines and more than 16 million broadband lines (as of December 31, 2010). The Group provides products and services for the fixed network, mobile communications, the Internet and IPTV for consumers, and ICT solutions for business customers and corporate customers. Deutsche Telekom is present in over 50 countries and has around 247,000 employees worldwide. The Group generated revenues of EUR 62.4 billion in the 2010 financial year - more than half of it outside Germany (as of December 31, 2010).
About T-Mobile USA
Based in Bellevue, Wash., T-Mobile USA, Inc. is the U.S. wireless operation of Deutsche Telekom AG. By the end of the fourth quarter of 2010, approximately 129 million mobile customers were served by the mobile communication segments of the Deutsche Telekom group - 33.7 million by T-Mobile USA - all via GSM and UMTS, the world's most widely used digital wireless standards. Today, T-Mobile operates America's largest 4G network, and is delivering a compelling 4G experience across a broad lineup of leading devices in more places than competing 4G services. T-Mobile USA's innovative wireless products and services empower and enable people to stay connected and productive while mobile. Multiple independent research studies continue to rank T-Mobile USA as a leader in customer care and customer satisfaction. For more information, please visit http://www.T-Mobile.com. T-Mobile is a federally registered trademark of Deutsche Telekom AG. For further information on Deutsche Telekom, please visit www.telekom.de/investor-relations.
Cautionary Language Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
Information set forth in this news release contains financial estimates and other forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. In addition to these factors, there are risks and uncertainties associated with the T-Mobile business, the pendency of the T-Mobile acquisition and the ability to realize the benefits of the integration of the T-Mobile business. A discussion of factors that may affect future results is contained in AT&T's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. AT&T disclaims any obligation to update or revise statements contained in this news release based on new information or otherwise. This news release may contain certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations between the non-GAAP financial measures and the GAAP financial measures are available on the company's website at www.att.com/investor.relations.
© 2011 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. Mobile broadband not available in all areas. AT&T, the AT&T logo and all other marks contained herein are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property and/or AT&T affiliated companies.
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=46945484
Here's a great article/read that I came across from WIRED Magazine -
All Natural: Why Breasts Are the Key to the Future of Regenerative Medicine
* By Sharon Begley Email Author
* October 20, 2010 |
* 7:08 pm |
* Wired November 2010
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/10/ff_futureofbreasts/
To be in the company of Chris Calhoun is to encounter breasts, and encounter the damn things anytime, anywhere—including over a plate of spaghetti in a bustling Manhattan restaurant.
On this spring afternoon, the 44-year-old CEO of San Diego-based biotech company Cytori Therapeutics pulls out his laptop, launches a PowerPoint presentation, and there they are: conical and cantaloupy, As through Ds, beige and pink and taupe and tan, more breasts than you might see in a women’s locker room, never mind in the middle of a lunch table.
A passing waiter does a double take at this lively slide show, but Calhoun is oblivious. He’s talking excitedly about how these women’s bodies led him and his team of scientists to a discovery in tissue engineering, a process that could well be one of the most momentous medical advances of the 21st century: the use of stem cells—specifically stem-cell-enriched adipose (fat) tissue—to enhance, heal, and rebuild injured or damaged organs.
A few taps on his laptop reveal the unsettling “before” images of these seemingly normal breasts. There: a breast with a divot the size of a plum taken out of the bottom from a lumpectomy. There: a chest as flat as a floor mat from a double mastectomy. There: one so misshapen after a partial mastectomy, it’s possible to determine what it actually is only because of its healthy companion. “We realized that for these women there was a huge unmet need for a disruptive change in technology,” Calhoun says of the work that has consumed his team of researchers and surgeons for the past eight years. “It’s the first practical cell therapy.” He pauses. “And it’s breasts.” Which means cancer victims with breasts mutilated by surgery—as well as women who are simply unhappy with their natural assets—can now grow a new and improved pair, with raw materials harvested from their own body fat.
But breast augmentation is just one development (so to speak) in the company’s more ambitious plan: to introduce stem cell medicine to the mass market—and not using the ethically fraught kind of stem cells from human embryos. Instead, based on almost a decade of trials that Cytori and its academic partners have performed on cell cultures, lab rodents, and now humans, they believe their engineered flab cells can treat more organs than you find in a French butcher shop. Chronic heart disease? Check: In human studies released in May, the cells improved patients’ aerobic capacity and shrank the size of the infarct (tissue killed by lack of blood). Heart attack? Check: A human clinical trial, also reported in May, found that the cells increased both the blood supply to damaged heart muscle and the volume of blood that the heart pumped. Kidney injury as a result of cancer therapy? Check: In recent rat studies, the cells improved kidney function. Incontinence after prostatectomy? Check: Another recent study reported that, by 12 weeks after injection, the cells had decreased the amount of urine male volunteers were leaking by 89 percent. If Calhoun and his scientists succeed, they won’t just create more cleavage. They’ll make practical a whole new field, one that medical visionaries have dreamed of for decades: regenerative medicine.
It makes sense to apply Cytori’s technology to enhance breasts instead of, say, repair urinary sphincters as a strategic way to move the patented technology out of rats and into people as soon as possible. Hearts, kidneys, and even sphincters have to work in order for us to survive. But we can live just fine without breast tissue, and, outside of feeding offspring, breasts don’t have to do much. The fact is, the scientific and regulatory hurdles to getting Cytori’s cells into clinical use will be easier to clear for breasts than for other tissue: Breasts simply aren’t as necessary as other organs, so the bar for proving to regulators that the technology works will be lower.
It’s also a booming market. In 2009, women forked over $964 million to plastic surgeons for breast augmentation, which edges out nose jobs as the most commonly performed plastic surgery in the US.
Photo: Robyn Twomey
If Calhoun and his team succeed, they won't just create more cleavage. They'll make possible a whole new field: regenerative medicine.
Photo: Robyn Twomey
More is driving that trend than just media-hyped views of beauty. Breast cancer is a major factor. Incidence of the disease has risen from 105 per 100,000 women in 1975 to 125 per 100,000 today (though it peaked at 141 per 100,000 in 1999), and the survival rate has increased: 75 percent of women diagnosed in 1975 lived at least five more years, compared with 90 percent today. That means more women will live more years after a lumpectomy or mastectomy. Most of these survivors would just as soon live those years with something that resembles what they had before, thank you very much. Yet only 30 percent of women facing mastectomy are even offered a consultation with a plastic surgeon, notes Michael McGuire, president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and an associate professor of surgery at UCLA. And only 25 percent of women who lose a breast to cancer get a new one. (In 2009, there were 86,424 breast reconstructions.)
There is also demand from a burgeoning demographic no one would have predicted 15 years ago: young women choosing bilateral prophylactic mastectomy after testing positive for mutations in genes—known as BRCA1 and BRCA2—that increase the risk of breast cancer by a factor of five compared with that for women without the mutations. Others are diagnosed with cancer in one breast, have a mastectomy, and decide to have the healthy breast removed as well. In a 2009 study of women undergoing all forms of surgery for breast cancer, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology by researchers led by surgical oncologist Todd Tuttle of the University of Minnesota, 29 percent opted for this “contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.” Among just mastectomy patients (that is, excluding those who had a lumpectomy or other breast-sparing surgery), the rate of taking out the good with the bad was an astounding 56 percent—even though studies find no survival advantage in removing the healthy breast. Yet Tuttle hears it all the time: I never want to go through this again. “Younger and more- educated women are the ones choosing to go this route,” he says. And despite the improvements in silicone implants, they’re still vulnerable to ruptures and may eventually need to be replaced. What’s more, inserting a single implant after cancer surgery can leave a woman asymmetric: It stays put while the surviving breast sags. It’s no wonder, then, that women all over the world are desperate for a better option.
Here’s the weird thing about breasts: They are a point of obsession, vulnerable to the mercurial whims of mass culture. But one thing remains constant: In every era, a whole lot of women are convinced they have the wrong kind.
For better or for worse (mostly for worse), science, or a rudimentary facsimile thereof, has always been eager to help. European women of the 16th century applied a cumin-seed paste with a cloth soaked in water and vinegar to their breasts to keep them small and firm. In the late 1800s, the Princess Bust Developer consisted of a cream and a nifty device resembling a toilet plunger to increase cup size. Starting in the 1940s pinup era, there were liquid silicone oil injections for breast enlargement (bad idea: leakage, inflammation, granulomas) followed, in 1962, by silicone-filled implants.
Given this history of far-fetched augmentation schemes, it’s not entirely unfathomable that a plastic surgeon would one day realize the secret to enhanced breasts was hidden in a pair of love handles. In 1999, Marc Hedrick, then an assistant professor of surgery at UCLA, was doing yet another liposuction, and not a little suck-out-a-few-ounces-around-my-thighs-please-doctor procedure, either. He vacuumed 8 liters—more than 2 gallons—of fat from his patient. Scientists had long wondered whether fat tissue might contain stem cells. “If it does, then here we are, stupid plastic surgeons, doing the stupidest procedure on the face of the earth,” says Hedrick, 48, now sitting in the La Jolla, California, offices of Cytori, which he cofounded in 2002. “I’d just taken 8 liters out of some woman and dumped it in the trash. I asked myself, are there really stem cells in there?”
Meanwhile, a postdoctoral fellow named Min Zhu had become bored with the rheumatology research she was doing and was looking for a new field. She joined Hedrick’s lab in spring of 1999, and he set her to the task of finding out once and for all whether there were stem cells in fat. Determining the qualities of a stem cell (versus a regular one) requires proving that it can differentiate into many cells, but Zhu hit a brick wall even before she could attempt that: After she isolated candidate stem cells from fat, the things refused to grow, let alone differentiate.
Her breakthrough came when she figured out that rather than using the standard fibroblasts as feeder cells in her culture, she would use blood. “She just brute-forced it,” Hedrick says. “She was forging her own trail—with a machete.” Using blood to nourish and grow the stem cells, Zhu managed to induce them to differentiate into three lineages: first bone and cartilage, then muscle, and then neuron. She walked into Hedrick’s office and said, “I think I have something.” In April 2001, the scientists published in the journal Tissue Engineering their discovery that adipose tissue is chock-full of stem cells.[color=red][/color]
At the same time that Zhu was making her breakthrough, Cytori’s Calhoun was running a medical device company called MacroPore Biosurgery, and one of his salespeople told him about a plastic surgeon at UCLA named Marc Hedrick, who was doing some interesting tissue work. Curious, Calhoun arranged a sit-down with Hedrick. After some pleasantries, the surgeon dropped his bombshell: We’ve found stem cells in fat tissue. And it’s the mother lode. The cells are in the padding around hips, thighs, abdomen, and flabby upper arms in such quantity that it isn’t even necessary to culture them—get them to grow and proliferate in lab dishes—to harvest an abundant supply. There is roughly one adipose stem cell per 100 fat cells. (By comparison, bone marrow contains one per 250,000 to 400,000 cells.) “Marc said, we can get these cells out, it has nothing to do with embryos, and their potential is enormous,” Calhoun recalls. “I loved him the moment I met him.” That love was worth $1 million, the amount of MacroPore’s money that Calhoun invested in the company Hedrick was starting, called StemSource.
By 2002, Calhoun had persuaded MacroPore’s board to sell a division of the company to Medtronic, the big medical-device maker, for $21 million. Calhoun turned around and used the cash to buy StemSource, inking the deal in October 2002. (MacroPore changed its name to Cytori Therapeutics in July 2005.)
Although StemSource’s original business plan had been to bank stem cells, once it had been acquired by MacroPore, the focus switched to therapeutic uses for those adipose stem cells. Since Hedrick’s surgical practice focused on children with facial defects, he thought the cells could be coaxed to make bone in kids with a cleft palate. But as he and his UCLA team did more studies, Hedrick says, “we realized that although the cells could make bone, what they were really good at was making a new blood supply. We felt like if we could target that, it would be the key to every ischemic disease,” in which tissue dies for want of an adequate blood supply—and therefore oxygen. “That led us to reconfigure the company to investigate using the cells for heart attack patients.”
As he and his team conducted rodent studies for heart disease (at one point, Cytori had hundreds of animals in its labs), Hedrick thought if adipose stem cells could yank heart tissue back from death’s door by restoring blood flow, maybe the cells could keep other tissue alive and healthy. The radiation that women typically undergo after lumpectomy or mastectomy, for instance, damages the surviving tissue and destroys the local blood supply. “The tissue gets hard, and that makes it difficult to reconstruct or put an implant in,” Calhoun says. And thus the idea of using adipose stem cells to reconstruct the breast was born.
By 2003, Hedrick and Calhoun were pushing ahead with research on using their stem cells to repair hearts damaged by heart attack or chronic disease. But at the same time, they were grappling with the challenge of repairing patients after partial mastectomy and lumpectomy. It’s something that’s always been a problem for surgeons: Building only part of a breast with conventional methods, it turns out, is more difficult than constructing a whole new one, because it requires what UCLA’s McGuire delicately calls “local tissue rearrangement and/or flaps rather than implants.” In other words, the doctor squeezes and smooshes and moves tissue to fill in divots and missing quadrants and, with luck, turns what might have been reduced to an A cup during a cancer operation into a match for the B or C on the healthy side. The result, alas, can be “very much less than optimal,” McGuire admits. “It’s difficult to re-create the shape.” And ironically, given how grateful most breast cancer patients are if they can have a lumpectomy rather than a total mastectomy, such breast-sparing surgery can leave a woman with an aesthetically irreparable breast. With tumors smaller than an inch across, lumpectomy leaves a gouge of up to twice that size, says surgeon Jan Vranckx of Leuven University Hospitals in Belgium: “Breast-conserving surgery is good at keeping the cancer from returning only if it is followed by radiotherapy, but that leaves scars and rigid, badly healing tissue. Yet the defects are often regarded as too small to do a full reconstruction.”
Calhoun and Hedrick wanted to test their cells on the damaged breasts that other doctors couldn’t be bothered with. But Hedrick knew that bringing adipose stem cells into the clinic required more than biology. It also required technology. When Hedrick originally outlined his vision for Calhoun in 2000, he showed him drawings of a device to isolate the stem cells from liposuctioned fat en masse. “We were thinking a box,” Hedrick says. “We need some kind of box.”
After $200 million in R&D, the “box” became the Celution System. It looks like a souped-up photocopier. But instead of taking in originals and spitting out replicas, it turns liposuctioned fat into breast-making gold. The process to fix a lumpectomy divot begins when a surgeon pierces a patient’s tummy with a syringe and sucks out about 360 cc (12 fluid ounces) of fat, which is the pink-orange color of a Pacific sunset. Each syringe takes about five minutes to fill; to treat an average divot requires eight to 10 syringes’ worth. The fat is squirted into the Celution device. A proprietary mix of enzymes digest the scaffolding that holds the tissue together, freeing the cells; the centrifuge separates the adipose tissue from the stem cells, which form a pellet at the bottom of the tube. Those cells are then combined with some of the remaining liposuctioned fat-tissue cells. The result, now a pale pink suspension containing millions of the stem and regenerative cells, is ready to go. The whole process takes about two hours.
It’s worth pausing here to ask just what, exactly, these magic cells are. Cytori calls them adipose-derived stem cells, or adipose-derived stem and regenerative cells, and sometimes adipose-derived progenitor cells. “These things have gone through the ringer in choosing a name,” says biomechanical engineer Kent Leach of UC Davis, who has used whatever-they-are to treat bone cysts in racehorses. A stem cell, by definition, is able to differentiate into any of the 200-plus kinds of cells in the human body, just as the cells of a days-old embryo can (and do). Cytori’s are unlikely to ever show that range of differentiation. But they can differentiate into fat, bone, and muscle—among other tissues—depending on which signaling molecules they are exposed to. In a petri dish, the scientists provide those “this is what you will be when you grow up” molecules. In nature—that is, an embryo in a womb—biology somehow does.
Now that they had their box, the Cytori team faced one more hurdle: finding suitable subjects. “There aren’t good animal models for breast reconstruction after cancer,” Hedrick says. “That’s why we went to humans so soon.”
They found their humans in Japan, where the company had connections to surgeons through their business partners. But Japan made sense for another reason: There, the disfigurement of a mastectomy or lumpectomy is tantamount to social banishment. Much of a traditional woman’s social life centers on public baths, and those whose breast cancer has left them deformed seldom go. When Keizo Sugimachi, a surgeon and president of Kyushu Central Hospital in Fukuoka, learned what Cytori was developing, he launched an investigator-initiated (as opposed to Cytori-sponsored) trial, dubbed Restore 1. Over the course of six months in 2006, he treated 20 women who’d had a partial mastectomy two to five years before. It was also the first clinical use of Cytori’s Celution System. Hedrick assisted on nearly all of the procedures and helped orchestrate how each would progress. They developed it all on the fly, using a lot of guesswork. How much fat do you extract? How many cells do you add back into the mix? How do you combine the liposuctioned fat with enzymes and growth factors and the other magic potions (all trade secrets) in the Celution machine? Do you overtreat, giving a woman more cell-enhanced tissue than you think is needed in case some of it doesn’t take? Where do you make the incision in the breast to inject the cells? How do you deal with scarring from the radiation most mastectomy patients get after surgery? “I think we just guessed right,” Hedrick says. “We solved a lot of the problems in the first operation. If it didn’t work, it was because we put too much in, or didn’t treat the scar, or didn’t prepare the tissue bed right.”
They got better with each case, improving the protocol as they went. In December 2007, Sugimachi told the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that all 20 of the women in Restore 1 tolerated the procedure just fine, none had an immune response, and 79 percent were satisfied with the outcome. There was no significant loss of breast size between one month and the final assessment 12 months later. That was a crucial barometer, given what happens when plastic surgeons inject fat alone, which was a popular cosmetic-surgery technique in the 1980s and 1990s: The injected fat tended to vanish into the surrounding tissue several weeks later like butter into the crannies of a hot English muffin. (Women who opted for this method were encouraged to think of breast enhancement like a dye job—once the effect fades, go back for another session.) But Cytori’s adipose stem cells stuck around.
This is because Cytori’s cells are not becoming breast tissue, as you might assume if you heard that someone was using stem cells for boob jobs. You don’t sprinkle the cells in petri dishes and come back in a few weeks to find a crop of breasts. Instead, the fat cells in the Celution mixture provide the volume, filling the divot in the lumpectomy, the missing quadrant in the quadrantectomy, or the empty skin pouch in the mastectomy. Think of them as the big dumb grunts of the battalion. The regenerative cells in the mixture encourage the growth of a blood supply. They’re the clever engineers who provide the supply lines that the fat cell grunts need to survive. And that combination is what promises to distinguish the breasts built with—and now let’s switch to the more accurate term—adipose regenerative cells from those built with fat injections alone. “If you give the tissue blood, it will survive and not be reabsorbed,” Leuven University’s Vranckx says. Sensation is about as good as before since the relevant nerves are in the skin and muscle (and, with lumpectomies, the nipple remains intact).
It’s the cells’ ability to induce the formation of blood vessels, however, that also makes them attractive as therapy for ischemic heart disease. Although some researchers have claimed that adipose regenerative cells can differentiate into epithelial cells, which can form capillaries and other blood vessels, the evidence is pointing to something more modest but no less useful: The cells churn out proteins, among them vascular endothelial growth factor, that induce surrounding cells to form blood vessels. As a result, cells that had been starved for blood and therefore oxygen are suddenly awash in both.
If the science part of this was figuring out how to process the fat in the box, the art comes in doing the injections. You don’t take a big syringe full of the stuff from the Celution machine and cram it into the breast as if you were filling a cannoli. You meticulously inject hundreds of tiny dollops, like a pè2tissier making little rosettes with a piping tube on a fancy cake. To accomplish that, Cytori created the Celbrush. It has a blunt tip to make tiny cuts that break the scar tissue, transforming it into a biological mesh. As the Celbrush is moved, the surgeon turns a wheel, which releases the tissue half a cc at a time. “You do that hundreds of times and you create a lattice with stem cells,” Hedrick says. Adds Calhoun, “It’s really as close to sculpture as anything done in plastic surgery today.” The injection area is not painful afterward, while the liposuction site is only slightly sore. Patients go home that day.
A clinical trial in Europe in 2008 and 2009, called Restore 2, used the next generation of the Celution machines, also with tantalizing results. It studied women who’d had a partial mastectomy, including Irene MacKenzie, 51, who works for the national health service in Scotland. She was diagnosed with breast cancer six years ago, and after a partial mastectomy was told by her surgeons that reconstruction wasn’t necessary, let alone possible.
MacKenzie had heard about a surgeon, Eva Weiler-Mithoff of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary, who might be able to help. MacKenzie sought her out and in the spring of 2008, Weiler-Mithoff called and told her about the Restore 2 trial, for which she was a lead investigator. MacKenzie signed on. She liked the results but in January 2009 returned to Weiler-Mithoff for another go. “She told me maybe we should have put more cells in, so I went back,” says MacKenzie, who now pronounces herself delighted with her new breast. In December 2009, Weiler-Mithoff told the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that the procedure improved breast deformity in most of the 31 patients who were assessed, with the new breasts holding up for the six to 12 months that the women had been followed. How the new breast felt and moved on the chest wall kept improving. “One of the most striking aspects of the trial was how happy the patients were” with their new breast, says Weiler-Mithoff, who compares the injections to putting in “little pearl strings of fat.” The women, she says, “felt whole again.” MacKenzie’s need for a touch-up, however, shows that not everyone gets the desired results the first time. In fact, all but one of Vranckx’s post-mastectomy patients needed at least two procedures. The Celbrush, after all, is the instrument of an artist. “So far, we’ve been able to repair defects that we couldn’t before,” Vranckx says. “But it can take eight hours to do two breasts—eight hours bringing one droplet after another to the breast. It’s sculpting, and not everyone can be a sculptor.”
Restore 1 showed that Cytori’s cells could rebuild breasts lost to cancer. The next logical step was trying it out for breast augmentation. Perhaps not surprisingly, once again this happened in Japan. The country has a strong and entrenched cultural prejudice against putting anything foreign into one’s body; organ transplants were slow to be adopted in Japan and still remain rare. But if that ick factor is the immovable object, the Western-inspired desire for bigger breasts is the irresistible force.
In late 2007, cosmetic surgeon Tatsuro Kamakura of Cosmetic Surgery Seishin in Japan began a study of the Celution System for breast augmentation, eventually enrolling 20 women. In 2008 he told the Congress of the Japan Society of Aesthetic Surgery that the first three patients kept their new volume and that the tissue remained soft and natural. He had injected an average of 160 cc of stem-cell-loaded fat droplets, boosting breast circumference an average of 4 centimeters (1.6 cup sizes). In commercial use, a new breast could run about $2,000 to $2,800, depending on physician charges. “It’s probably a $1 billion market,” Calhoun says. “You can buy an appliance with a 30 to 40 percent unpleasant rate or you can use your own cells. Which would you choose?”
But the possibilities aren’t boundless. “It’s not a substitute for implants for women who want to look, um, unnaturally large,” Hedrick says. “You can’t take a flat-chested woman and make her look like a dancer at a strip club. We’re not targeting that market. If they don’t care about looking natural, let them do silicone. The goal of this is a natural, soft-tissue feeling. Plus, there is a whole new market of women who would love another 100 to 200 cc but would never have an implant. I think that’s bigger than the current breast implant market”—a sea of women who wouldn’t consider a silicone implant but who would be intrigued by the opportunity to have their breasts plumped with cells from their own bodies while reducing the fat in their hips and abdomen to boot.
Typically, experimental medical treatments go through years of testing in animals before they reach people, but as women in Japan were being treated with Cytori’s cells, the company was still conducting studies on animals to assess the safety of the procedure. As recently as 2007, Cytori’s principal scientist, John Fraser, was performing key experiments on mice. The problem is that the reason adipose regenerative cells work—inducing the formation of blood vessels—is also the reason they might be dangerous, especially to cancer survivors. Such angiogenesis, after all, is what allows metastatic tumors to thrive. But Fraser’s experiment showed that in mice, the adipose regenerative cells did not trigger the formation of breast tumors, promote their growth, or cause them to metastasize to the lungs. The human trials have not followed the women for very long, so it is still possible that a dangerous side effect like cancer—much worse than needing a touch-up, as Irene MacKenzie did—will emerge.
“People do challenge me: ‘Why are we moving so fast?’” Fraser says, standing in a corridor adorned with posters of scientific results he and his colleagues have presented at conferences. Hedrick jumps in: “It’s because we think like doctors taking care of patients. We have a lot of doctors working here. When we felt there was clear sailing, we hit the gas pedal. Where we felt there were obstacles, we slowed down.” Adds Fraser, “We’re not cowboys.”
They might find themselves in an industry shoot-out, however, as the allure of adipose-derived stem cells has drawn other companies to the field. The most flamboyant is AdiStem, based in Hong Kong. Its process, like Cytori’s, begins with liposuction. The fat is mixed with enzymes and centrifuged, then the precipitated cells are centrifuged again. That, however, is where the similarity ends. AdiStem next mixes its cells with plasma and exposes them to laser light, the company claims, to photoactivate stem cell functionality. CEO Vasilis Paspaliaris says the resulting cells can then potentially be used to treat autism, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, osteoarthritis of the knee and hip, type 2 diabetes, acne scarring, and hair loss, as well as in post-lumpectomy cosmetic reconstruction. Although Paspaliaris says all the results seem promising, he believes “the most convincing” are those for the face. Some Los Angeles cosmetic surgeons are already using the AdiStem process with face-lifts.
These claims have raised eyebrows. It hasn’t helped that AdiStem posts videos of its autism “treatments” on YouTube or that there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers on use of photoactivation to increase stem cell functionality. AdiStem “is one of many small opportunists who are jumping on the adipose-derived stem cell bandwagon,” Calhoun says. “At the right time, we will protect our markets and enforce our patents, but at present it seems to be a potential waste of capital, resources, and energy.” Cytori’s bigger concern is that although these companies may pose no competitive threat, they are a PR disaster waiting to happen.
Although regulators in Europe and Japan were satisfied with the animal and human studies Cytori submitted for approval of the Celution machine, the US Food and Drug Administration has yet to weigh in. Vranckx, who met with FDA officials, says that despite Fraser’s mouse experiment, the agency is worried about injecting blood-vessel-promoting cells into patients who have had breast cancer. But although Cytori can’t market its Celution System without FDA approval, doctors can purchase it, just as they can prescribe a drug approved for one use for a completely unrelated purpose but can’t advertise it for that use. In fact, the FDA takes the position that as long as cells are removed and returned to the same person in one procedure, a physician does not need approval to do it. Still, without FDA approval, Cytori can’t promote its device; without promotion, it is unlikely to be widely adopted. Cytori is currently in discussions with the FDA for permission to conduct a clinical trial of its device. If the trial is a success—in particular, if there are no adverse effects from the cell injections—the next step would be to seek FDA approval for the entire process or conduct a second trial. Although a lot could still go wrong—surprises in clinical trials have killed many an experimental drug and device—Calhoun hopes positive results will launch his billion-dollar vision of regenerative medicine.
There is one other key feature that the next-generation Celution machine shares with a photocopier, as Calhoun demonstrates. Just as the latter has a touchscreen control panel that displays options (paper size, number of copies, magnification), so does the Celution, only here, the options are organs. “See? There’s a picture of a breast, a heart, a disc in the back,” he says. “You push that and the machine loads different software, which adds the right drugs,” reagents, and other biochemicals to the liposuctioned fat cells. He envisions an iPhone-like business model, with individual doctors devising apps to repair different organs with the perfect slurry of adipose regenerative cells. If it works, the breasts on his laptop will have plenty of company.
Sharon Begley (sbegle@aol.com) is science editor and a science columnist at Newsweek.
Outstanding post!
great post - great perspective
Cord Blood America Says Happy Thanksgiving to the CBAI Family, Investors, Friends
Press Release Source: Cord Blood America, Inc. On Wednesday November 24, 2010, 5:04 am
LAS VEGAS, Nov. 24, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- On this day before Thanksgiving, a day when our entire nation gives thanks for its blessing, Cord Blood America, Inc. (http://www.cordblood-america.com) (OTC Bulletin Board:CBAI.ob - News), the umbilical cord blood stem cell preservation company focused on bringing the life saving potential of stem cells to families nationwide and internationally, would like to share with its investors a post from its web site by Dr. Geoffrey O'Neill, CBAI Vice President, Operations. Happy Holidays everyone!
CBAI Gives Back
Taking the Plunge for a Good Cause
Tuesday, 23 November 2010 12:26
It has been almost 35 years since I came to New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from Scotland as a Visiting Fellow to gain experience in the developing medical specialty of bone marrow transplantation. Almost four decades later, we have seen the introduction of peripheral blood stem cell and cord blood transplants being used commonly in the treatment of malignant and genetic disease. As this field now evolves into the new specialty of Cellular Therapy and Regenerative Medicine, I now realize that one of the few benefits of aging is not only that I may myself benefit one day from these evolving therapies, but more importantly, it has allowed me to put my career journey somewhat into perspective.
I was 25 when I came to New York and the city offered a young "chap" excitement and opportunity. At that time, I met a young Hematology/Oncology Fellow from South Africa, who, to this day, is one of my closest friends. Back in 1976, to celebrate the U.S. Bicentennial, he invited me to go with him to Johannesburg, not only to see the animal life, but also skydive, since his family operated that business there. I eagerly agreed, although I must confess, I had grave concerns about landing in the African bush full of lions. Unfortunately, I was unable to go at the last minute, and since then I have always had the nagging desire to "jump". President George H. Bush jumps every year, so I thought why don't I just do it! I am not 25 anymore, but neither is President Bush and so I recently decided to "take the plunge" in Hawaii this coming December 12th. As the event gets closer, however, I find my fear factor increasing and have considered backing out.
Getting back to stem cells and disease...I recently undertook speaking engagements for Cord Blood America, throughout the U.S., on the importance of cord blood collection for use in stem cell therapies. I had the privilege of working with a member of our Business Development Team, Ms. Lea Ann Stiller, whose daughter, Natalie, has Fanconi anemia, a rare and fatal hereditary disease. Natalie's sister Emily's cord blood was the very first cord blood collection and in 1989, Natalie was the first female to receive a cord blood transplant. Cord blood transplantation was new and the outcome was uncertain but Natalie's transplant was a success and a major breakthrough. Natalie is now 25 and continues to do well.
In medicine, we tend to think that it is solely the physicians and scientists that drive the introduction of such new treatments, but after spending time with Lea Ann and Natalie, it became clear to me that these families, due to their unwillingness to let their children die, have actually themselves, through their courage and determination, paved the way for the almost 20,000 cord blood transplants that have occurred to date.
At the same time, I also had the privilege of meeting the delivery nurse, Ms. Janice Gibbs from Norton's Hospital in Louisville, KY, who collected the cord blood for this historic procedure and who still feels the "power" of that important day.
My fear of jumping out of a plane pales in terms of Lea Ann's fear of losing her child. To overcome my own fear, I decided, therefore, to jump to increase awareness about Fanconi anemia through the Fanconi Anemia Research Fund, www.fanconi.org, and hopefully raise some needed funds for research. I am excited to do this and grateful that I was able to put the past years in perspective and truly understand why we do what we do. It's not just about me anymore, but something more meaningful and for that I am thankful.
To make a donation to the Fanconi Anemia Research Fund follow this link www.fanconi.org/index.php/donate and let them know that you are donating on behalf of my sky diving jump on Dec 12th.
To all the Natalies of the world, this is for you.
To my colleague and friend, Erin Tecca, my thanks for your free spirit in joining me on the jump for this cause.
To my colleagues and friends at Cord Blood America, Inc. and our International Affiliates, I thank you for your support.
To our many investors, I hope this story tells another side of what Cord Blood America is all about. We work hard for you, but we work even harder for those who may benefit from these stem cell treatments.
My best wishes to all of our readers for the upcoming holiday season. I shall keep you updated.
Dr. Geoffrey O'Neill, VP of Operations, CorCell/Cord Blood America
For more information please visit the following sites:
* Fanconi Anemia www.fanconi.org and to make donations www.fanconi.org/index.php/donate
* Natalie Curry www.allaboutcordblood.com and http://www.nataliecurry.com
* Saving Baby's Cord Blood www.corcell.com
About Cord Blood America
Cord Blood America is the parent company of CorCell, which facilitates umbilical cord blood stem cell preservation for expectant parents and their children. Its mission is to be the most respected stem cell preservation company in the industry. Collected through a safe and non-invasive process, cord blood stem cells offer a powerful and potentially life-saving resource for treating a growing number of ailments, including cancer, leukemia, blood, and immune disorders. To find out more about Cord Blood America, Inc., visit our website at http://www.corcell.com/. For investor information, visit http://www.cordblood-america.com/.
CONTACT:
Paul Knopick
E & E Communications
949/707-5365
pknopick@eandecommunications.com
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cord-Blood-America-Says-Happy-prnews-550837481.html?x=0&.v=1
simple math for the longs: here's some simple math and I emphasize the word simple it is pure numbers (no operating/other expenses factored into the equation) and pure speculation. This fun with numbers exercise illustrates where this company could be headed once this sector/industry/service continues to gain global momentum within the mainstream
column 1: year
column 2: #samples (newly added each year)
column 3: fee $125 (annual-compounded)
column 4: fee $2,000 (initial)
column 5: yearly total
1: 2: 3: 4: 5:
2009 25,000.00 $3,125,000.00 ---------- $3,125,000.00
2010 25,000.00 $6,250,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $56,250,000.00
2011 50,000.00 $12,500,000.00 $100,000,000.00 $112,500,000.00
2012 75,000.00 $21,875,000.00 $150,000,000.00 $171,875,000.00
2013 150,000.00 $40,625,000.00 $300,000,000.00 $340,625,000.00
2014 200,000.00 $65,625,000.00 $400,000,000.00 $465,625,000.00
2015 250,000.00 $96,875,000.00 $500,000,000.00 $596,875,000.00
tot 775,000.00 $246,875,000.00 $247,650,000.00 $1,746,875,000.00
Once again this is PURE SPECULATION and just my opinion...
6,000,000 shares long
Cord Blood America Announces Agreement with the Hawaii Medical Service Association
Press Release Source: Cord Blood America, Inc. On Thursday October 28, 2010, 5:02 am
LAS VEGAS, Oct. 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Cord Blood America, Inc. (www.cordblood-america.com) (OTC Bulletin Board:CBAI.ob - News), the umbilical cord blood stem cell preservation company focused on bringing the life-saving potential of stem cells to families nationwide and internationally, is pleased to announce a new work agreement with the Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the largest and most experienced provider of health care coverage in Hawaii.
"Over half of Hawaii's population has chosen HMSA for their health care coverage," said Matthew Schissler, Chairman, CEO and co-founder of Cord Blood America. "We are pleased to work with such a prestigious, well-known and well-respected health care program."
HMSA is now offering their members the opportunity to bank their baby's cord blood, which contains important stem cells, privately at a generous discount. Members can also take advantage of Cord Blood America's "Afford-A-Cord" program, which allows for a smaller payment at time of birth.
About Cord Blood America
Cord Blood America is the parent company of CorCell, which facilitates umbilical cord blood stem cell preservation for expectant parents and their children. Its mission is to be the most respected stem cell preservation company in the industry. Collected through a safe and non-invasive process, cord blood stem cells offer a powerful and potentially life-saving resource for treating a growing number of ailments, including cancer, leukemia, blood, and immune disorders. To find out more about Cord Blood America, Inc., visit our website at http://www.corcell.com/. For investor information, visit www.cordblood-america.com/.
CONTACT:
Paul Knopick
E & E Communications
949/707-5365
pknopick@eandecommunications.com
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cord-Blood-America-Announces-prnews-3644712446.html?x=0&.v=1
Although a few weeks old - this article reinforces the global awareness umbilical cord blood is achieving....
Kajol gives birth to boy, stores umbilical cord blood
Posted: Tue Sep 14 2010, 17:04 hrs
Updated: Tue Sep 14 2010, 17:12 hrs
New Delhi:
Bollywood actress Kajol has joined hundreds of other women who have stored their umbilical cord blood and tissues, which may act as a stemcell source and protect their children from several serious ailments.
Kajol, who gave birth to a baby boy on Monday, has stored her umbilical cord blood and cord tissue with a Chennai-based 'cord blood bank' - Life Cell International, sources said.
These umbilical cord blood and cord tissue act as a rich source of stem cells which can eventually help in treating serious health problems like leukaemia, lymphoma and other blood cancers and bone marrow disorders.
Cord blood is referred to the blood which remains in the umbilical cord of a baby just after its birth. Cord tissue contains mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which create structural and connective tissue and can be used to treat conditions like spinal cord injury, stroke and cartilage damage, the sources said.
They said Kajol had a cesarean delivery at around 0920 hours at the Lilavati Hospital.
Life Cell International, which offers cord blood and tissue stem cell banking, has close to 25,000 members, including Bollywood actors like Hrithik Roshan and Farhan Akhtar, children of Wipro chairman Azim H Premji besides several politicians.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Kajol-gives-birth-to-boy--stores-umbilical-cord-blood/681404