Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nope I don't work for Frost and Sullivan, but it sounds like you have a serious problem pal.
Sounds reasonable - thanks for the info and thank god for irrevocable letters of credit.
What killed the Franc Telecom deal ?
BTW, thanks for your reply.
Per 11/1/05 pr: "The cellular GSM service will be provided by Telefonica Moviles Movistar (TEM) mobile networks..."
Here's the link to their website :
http://www.movistar.com/
What is the status on the China Telecom & Franc Telecom deal ?
Sounds like sleeping giant is about to wake up....
Sorry about the underline...
"The Board and Executive Committee at Patriot Scientific have an obligation to preserve our investors' assets, and we cannot meet this fiduciary responsibility while caving in to these unreasonable demands for unearned and unjustifiable compensation."
All shareholders in favor of removing Lowell Gifforn from the Board of Directors say "aye!"
"Giffhorn, who had served as CFO for more than five years - a period in which the now-profitable Patriot[/u/ had consistently lost millions of dollars per year- filed a formal demand in late September for an award of $1.5 million in severance payments through the American Arbitration Association."
An unusual week of press releases re PTSC & TPL, which was not new to shareholders previously, followed by PTSC and TPL's updated website design/news is very interesting.....
News re SNE settlement OR new license agreement with another company to follow soon ???
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Research In Motion Ltd. (RIMM) Wednesday failed to get an emergency stay request at the U.S. Supreme Court to freeze lower court proceedings in a patent dispute between it and NTP, a Virginia patent holding company, over BlackBerry wireless email devices.
Investor reaction to the decision - issued by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. without comment - was swift, with RIM shares falling sharply before being halted at 1:19 p.m. EDT. The stock has since resumed trading and recouped most of the losses. RIM shares recently traded up 23 cents, or 0.4%, to $57.59.
The stock has been battered since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied RIM's request for an en banc hearing.
The decline is fueled by concerns that the District Court will re-issue an injunction on U.S. BlackBerry sales, a devastating blow to RIM should it occur, before the Supreme Court acts on a regular appeal RIM plans to file.
NTP, in its own documents filed with the Supreme Court, downplayed the chance that might occur.
"As for the threat of any injunction, as previous settlement discussions show, NTP is a reasonable business entity that is willing to resolve the dispute between the parties and provide for complete 'global peace' going forward," attorneys for NTP said. The company also noted there is "ample time for RIM to file its petition for certiorari before any further action by the lower courts."
In a press release, RIM said Wednesday's decision by the Supreme Court does not mean the court has declined RIM's appeal for further review. "The Supreme Court merely decided that it would follow its normal course of allowing the District Court to decide whether and to what extent to continue the litigation in light of all the relevant circumstances, including the prospect that the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case," RIM said.
The company said that during upcoming proceedings it will ask the District Court to decide whether to enforce the "binding term sheet" signed by the two companies in March. RIM said it will also ask the court to determine the impact of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's ongoing review of the five NTP patents at the center of the dispute. The patent office has rejected all claims in all five patents in a preliminary review.
James Wallace, lawyer for NTP, said a status and scheduling conference is set for the morning of Nov. 9 at the District Court. NTP will take the position that there is time for RIM to file its request for review to the Supreme Court before Judge Spencer rules on an injunction.
NTP, for its part, said in a press release it will press ahead in lower court proceedings "for re-confirmation of its previously-entered injunction that prohibits RIM from selling, using, or importing into the U.S. infringing BlackBerry hardware and software."
RIM, Waterloo, Ontario, has been engaged in a bitter fight with NTP for more than four years over the technology in the popular Blackberry wireless email devices.
NTP sued in 2001, saying the company had violated several of its patents with the BlackBerry product. A trial in a Virginia U.S. District Court resulted in a jury verdict against Research In Motion over five patents in 2003.
In its appeals, RIM has argued - so far unsuccessfully - that U.S. patent laws don't apply to it because the company operates in Canada. The pending Supreme Court appeal follows a series of setbacks at the Federal Circuit, which most recently denied an emergency petition from the company last week.
RIM, in the emergency appeal, said its business would be "irreparably harmed" if a lower court is free to issue an injunction before the Supreme Court reviews its appeal. "Research In Motion would suffer substantial revenue and profit losses," lawyers for the company said in the appeal.
Chief Justice Roberts handles emergency requests for cases out of the Washington-based Federal U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviewed the case on appeal because it dealt with patent law. RIM could refile its request with another justice, but such a move isn't likely to change the outcome of the emergency stay request.
RIM has until Jan. 7, 2006, to file its request for review to the Supreme Court. Some legal experts believe Spencer is unlikely to rule on an injunction before the high court makes its decision on whether to review the case. Experts also say that Spencer's decision may also take into account the fact that NTP doesn't make any products.
That's because Congress is considering legislation on whether an injunction should be granted to patent holders that don't make products, he said. Normally, patent holders are granted injunctions when their patents are infringed. However, the proliferation of patent trolls, companies that own patents and try to assert them even though they don't use the patents to make products, has led Congress to review the use of injunctions.
Still, James Hurt, lawyer at Chicago-based Winston & Strawn LLP, said he believes Spencer could issue the injunction ahead of the Supreme Court's decision. "The District Court has discretion to issue injunctions, despite the fact that one party is seeking review with the Supreme Court," he said.
Hurst said the Supreme Court "almost never" takes patent cases. He said that, if District Courts were required to wait for high court decisions on reviews before issuing injunctions, everyone would try to delay injunctions by seeking Supreme Court reviews.
While uncertainty over the patent dispute has weighed on RIM's stock in recent weeks, Robert McWhirter, a buy-side investor who has owned RIM shares in the past but doesn't presently, said an investment in RIM must factor in two main considerations. First, the outcome of the NTP dispute. Second, RIM's ability to fend off rising competition.
On the latter point, McWhirter, president of Selective Asset Management, a Toronto money-management firm, said it's his understanding that the threat from competitors like Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Nokia Corp. (NOK) and Motorola Inc. ( MOT) has been overstated. For instance, he said the BlackBerry device is less expensive than most competing devices and it generates higher revenues for RIM's carriers partners than most competing devices.
As for the NTP dispute, if RIM is forced to pay double the $450 million it agreed to pay NTP in March - as some analysts have suggested could happen in light of the renewed threat of an injunction - RIM could do so and still have plenty of cash left over, McWhirter said. The $450 million was part of the term sheet agreement that remains in dispute.
Analysts have said RIM could end up having to pay NTP as much as $3 billion if an injunction appears imminent, or as little as nothing if the PTO rejects NTP's patents in its final ruling.
It's unclear when the PTO's final ruling will come. NTP has said preliminary reviews are often reverse in whole or in part in follow-up reviews. It has also said that the PTO appeals process can take years and won't have any bearing on the District Court's actions.
Interesting to see if there will be additional news soon regarding SNE.....
If they settled, they're probably still drafting up the licensing agreement provided the short time-frame on 10/24/05 (Judge Armstrong's imposed deadline for an amended pleading t/w the release of 1Q-2006 - probably the reason why PTSC had to seek additional time to file the 1Q-2006 re accounting & disclosure procedures w/SEC).
Thanks...
Now that the PR is linked up w/AMD & INTC's press release (refer to Nasdaq.com) lets see if the momentum carrys over to to a wider range of investors and financial institutions....
Mr. Pohl,
Pursuant to your letter to shareholders dated August 4, 2005, what is the status of our company’s revised PR plan ?
Wouldn’t it be a great idea now to “boost awareness among San Diego and Silicon Valley business media, as well as local financial community,” the 1Q-2006 financial results and possible settlement w/SNE via “trade publications, business newspapers, radio and television?”
How about giving Bruce Bigelow a call - staff writer for the Union Tribune in San Diego who has wrote several articles on PTSC ?
Check the complaint where the corporations and its subsidiaries were created and organized.
Counsel for each defendant will have their own defense strategy - if it goes that far. 1 defendant has 2 of 6 subsidiaries’ principal place of business in Irving, Texas. Does this necessarily mean if negotiations fall apart with the other defendants, that counsel for each defendant will stick around in Texas? Case laws and interlocutory appeals will keep this case pending (if it goes that far) before it sees a daylight of trial.
No executed service of summons means no service of summons and complaint upon defendants (consult your attorney).
Filing the complaint in “Rocket Docket” Texas, “thanks to the Local Rules Structure,” is absurd, theatrical and unnecessary.
In my opinion, these case(s) will never go to trial. AMD & INTC license agreements validates MMP. Possible settlement w/SNE further validates MMP.
We need another PR from our CEO & President reviewing PTSC’s 1Q-2006 progress and accomplishments, and status regarding SNE.
TPL v. Fujitsu, et al.
CASE NUMBER: 05CV494
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Presiding Judge is T. John Ward who was appointed by President Clinton on Sept 27, 1999. BA from Texas Tech & JD from Baylor University.
Complaint for patent infringement is 18 pages long.
TPL states court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §§1331 and 1338(a), 35 USC §§1 et seq.
TPL further states venue is proper pursuant to 28 USC §§1391(b),(c),(d) and 1400(b).
No executed service of summons on file.
In my opinion, its up to the four companies to file an answer or responsive motion for summary judgment, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue.
As far as I can see, NEC is the only company mentioned that maintains its principal place of business at Irving, Texas.
This information, which is accessible by the general public, and my opinion(s) serves as an FYI for fellow shareholders and prospective investors.
** CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY **
In response to Agoracom post 428528, consult your attorney regarding Multi District Litigation Cases (MDLs) in Federal Court relevant to venue and jurisdiction.
Specify what I said that you feel I was wrong.
You got a problem with consulting an attorney regarding transfer of venue or lack of jurisdiction ?
Consult your attorney.
Interesting to see that there were no further comments regarding Sony. In my opinion, TPL and PTSC has eventually lead investors and shareholders, in this current critical timeframe, to speculate that TPL has secured, or is probably closer to securing a license agreement w/Sony than Fujitsu, Toshiba, Matsushita and NEC.
And no complementary press release or webcast regarding 1Q-2006 financial results as previous shown for 3Q-2005 filed with the SEC on 4/19/05 (PR published on 3/31/05, 4/5/05) and 4Q 2005 / 10K filed with the SEC on 9/13/05 (PR published on 8/4/05, 9/14/05). Isn't 1Q-2006 another "important milestone" for PTSC ? We need another PR from the CEO/President to rally this stock upwards & uplift shareholder value and moral.
Patriot Scientific Dismisses Lawsuits Against Major Electronics Equipment Manufacturers;
Strategic Move in Management of Patent Portfolio Litigation
9:36p ET October 25, 2005 (Business Wire) Patriot Scientific Corporation (OTCBB:PTSC.OB) a high-tech intellectual properties company that specializes in developing high-performance, ultra-low power microprocessor technology, has announced the voluntary self-dismissal of its lawsuit against Fujitsu Computer Systems, Inc.; Matsushita Electric Corporation of America; NEC Solutions (America) Inc.; Sony Electronics Inc.; and Toshiba America Inc.
Patriot Chairman, CEO and President David Pohl announced that the company has dismissed the action which had been pending in Federal District Court in Oakland, California. This case sought damages in excess of several hundred million dollars for claimed infringements involving patented microprocessor design technology held within Patriot Scientific's intellectual property portfolio."
In June, 2005, Patriot Scientific and The TPL Group, a global intellectual property management company, created a joint venture that resulted in the unified ownership of the portfolio. As a result, the TPL Group was assigned the management of the marketing, licensing and defense of these patents.
"Patriot reviews regular reports detailing the activities of The TPL Group on behalf of our unified portfolio and the series of microprocessor patents that are at the heart of a global $200 billion-plus microprocessor end-use market," Pohl pointed out, "and we are pleased with the significant effort that TPL is making. Having seen the effectiveness of The TPL Group in operation, it is Patriot Scientific's opinion that infringement lawsuits regarding the patent portfolio will be very capably managed by The TPL Group," Pohl explained. "Monday's strategic action is consistent with the cooperative spirit of the agreement we reached with TPL in June 2005."
In connection with this strategic decision, The TPL Group today announced it has filed broad-based intellectual property claim in the US District Court, Eastern District of Texas against a group of major Japanese electronics manufacturers. The broad-based claim cites Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC Toshiba and their affiliates for direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducing the infringement of at least three of the ten patents jointly owned with Patriot Scientific Corporation and contained in the Moore Microprocessor Patent(TM) (MMP) Portfolio, specifically
4 U.S. 5,784,584: Multiple Instruction Fetch
4 U.S. 5,809,336: Clocking CPU and I/O Separately
4 U.S. 6,598,148: Use of Multiple Cores and Embedded Memory
The cited infringements pertain to a wide variety of end-user products including personal computers, servers, workstations, home theater systems, digital TVs, video games, DVD Recorders/Players, mobile handsets and automotive electronics.
The Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Virginia are noted for their Local Rules structure, which makes it more difficult for large corporate infringers to engage in the dilatory and delaying tactics often used to disadvantage individual patent holders. Thanks to the Local Rules structure, these Districts enable patent infringement cases to move to trial in nine to twelve months, thus earning both Districts the common nickname of "Rocket Docket."
About the MMP Portfolio
The MMP portfolio contains intellectual property that became jointly owned by the privately held TPL Group and publicly held Patriot Scientific in a settlement between them in June 2005. Both TPL and Patriot assert that their jointly owned patents have long been essential to the design of advanced microprocessors, digital signal processors, embedded processors and system-on-chip devices. Global sales of end products deploying chips using technologies protected by the jointly owned patents are estimated to be greater than $200 billion annually. The MMP Portfolio is exclusively managed by Alliacense, a TPL Group enterprise. While major microprocessor manufacturers such as Intel (NasdaqNM: INTC) and Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD) were early MMP Portfolio licensees, Alliacense is now focusing its licensing efforts on system manufacturers such as the four defendants cited in the broad-based complaint filed yesterday.
About Patriot Scientific
Patriot Scientific (OTC Bulletin Board: PTSC.OB) has emerged as an effective and dynamic intellectual property company, developing and marketing innovative and proprietary semiconductor technologies. The company's portfolio of proprietary designs encompasses what is believed to be fundamental ultra-low-power array microprocessor technology, as well as pending patents designed to protect Patriot's proprietary technology and architecture.
Detailed information about Patriot Scientific can be found on the website www.ptsc.com. Copies of Patriot Scientific press releases, current price quotes, stock charts and other valuable information for investors may be found at www.hawkassociates.com and www.americanmicrocaps.com. An investment profile on Patriot Scientific may be found at http://www.hawkassociates.com/patriot/profile.htm
Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Statements in this news release looking forward in time involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks associated with the effect of changing economic conditions, trends in the products markets, variations in the company's cash flow, market acceptance risks, technical development risks, seasonality and other risk factors detailed in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
SOURCE: Patriot Scientific Corporation
By naming 4 of 5 defendants in the new infringement lawsuit, TPL provides the impression to shareholders, who have been following the lawsuits since 2003, that matters with Sony have either settled or diminished.
Filing these case(s) in Virigina and Texas because of its local rules structure and its nickname of "Rocket Docket" is absurd.
If these case(s) do not settle within twelve months, I expect these case(s) to be transferred or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In my opinion, these claims for infringement against the 4 companies should have been filed in California - where TPL and PTSC's offices/headquarters are located.
Four Major Japanese Electronics Manufacturers Cited for Infringement of Fundamental Microprocessor Patents
Broad-based filing in US District Court, Eastern District of Texas, claims direct and contributory infringement of intellectual property protected by Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio
CUPERTINO, Calif. - Oct. 25, 2005 - The TPL Group, a global intellectual property management company, today announced it has filed a broad-based intellectual property claim against four major Japanese electronics manufacturers in the US District Court, Eastern District of Texas. The broad-based claim cites Fujitsu, Matsushita, NEC and Toshiba for direct infringement, contributory infringement, and inducing the infringement of at least three of the ten patents in the Moore Microprocessor Patent™ Portfolio, specifically
U.S. 5,784,584: Multiple Instruction Fetch
U.S. 5,809,336: Clocking CPU and I/O Separately
U.S. 6,598,148: Use of Multiple Cores and Embedded Memory
The cited infringement pertains to a wide variety of end-user products including personal computers, servers, workstations, home theater systems, digital TVs, video games, DVD Recorders/Players, mobile handsets and automotive electronics.
The Eastern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Virginia are noted for their Local Rules structure, which makes it more difficult for large corporate infringers to engage in the dilatory and delaying tactics often used to disadvantage individual patent holders. Thanks to the Local Rules structure, these Districts enable patent infringement cases to move to trial in nine to twelve months, thus earning both Districts the common nickname of "Rocket Docket."
About the MMP Portfolio
The MMP portfolio contains intellectual property that became jointly owned by the privately held TPL Group and publicly held Patriot Scientific in a settlement between them in June 2005. Both TPL and Patriot assert that their jointly owned patents have long been essential to the design of advanced microprocessors, digital signal processors, embedded processors and system-on-chip devices. Global sales of end products deploying chips using technologies protected by the jointly owned patents are estimated to be greater than $200 billion annually. The MMP Portfolio is exclusively managed by Alliacense, a TPL Group enterprise. While major microprocessor manufacturers such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices were early MMP Portfolio licensees, Alliacense is now focusing its licensing efforts on system manufacturers such as the four defendants cited in the broad-based complaint filed yesterday. For more information on the MMP Portfolio, visit www.alliacense.com.
About The TPL Group
Founded in 1988, Silicon Valley based TPL Group has a solid track record in delivering a complete suite of intellectual property management services. In addition to optimizing IP Portfolio value and protecting assets from infringement, the TPL Group is also well versed in converting portfolio value into a maximum cash return for its owner(s). Through Alliacense, a cadre of senior licensing executives, the TPL Group manages IP Licensing Programs across a broad array of industries. For more information, visit www.tplgroup.net.
# # #
Media Contact: Tom Rigoli, Mindpik Inc., rigoli@mindpik.com, 650-969-5986
Back to Press Room Copyright 2005 TPL Group Inc.
CMC and PTSC v. Fujitsu, et al., are now moot.
Voluntary dismissal filed by PTSC.
Up to TPL to file a new complaint if negotiations fall apart, which I doubt, since AMD & INTC license agreements validates MMP.
Total curent assets $11,868,788
1Q-2006 released
Net income $4.4 million
CMC set for 11/9/05 at 4:00 pm is vacated and reset for a telephonic CMC on 12/1/05 at 3:15 pm. Joint CMC statement by 11/14/05. Amended pleading substituting TPL in place of PTSC as sole plaintiff remains unchanged for 10/24/05.
I guess Lowell Giffhorn's severance pay as CFO was short $1.5 million .... :)
Thanks for the links - I just returned from Vegas and Hawaii, and was just catching up on the recent developments.
Hey, I think PTSC & TPL should take Fujitsu, et al, to jury trial as soon as possible. The case(s) have been pending in federal court since 2003 and is now just going forward with case management / discovery procedures. Its no wonder why the judge denied the extension for stay and has been handling matters telephonically. These fellas don’t need a stay to concentrate on settlement. From what I understand, settlement can occur anytime from the point of filing the civil complaint to the point before jury instructions (consult your attorney). Those boys at TPL are surely accruing attorney costs and fees - which in turn could be paid by Fujitsu, et al., upon the jury and/or Court finding in favor of PTSC/TPL.
In the meantime, TPL should be forwarding your article finding on RIMM to Fujitsu, et al., emphasizing that “In 2002 a jury determined that RIM had infringed on NTP’s patents, and the court granted the injunction ordering the shutdown of the BlackBerry service and banning the device’s sale in the U.S.” RIMM decides to spend more money on attorney costs and fees to have the case heard before the Court of Appeals and hopefully before the Supreme Court (which will never happen). Someone please tell me how often does a jury verdict is overturned on a patent case?? I imagine it is very rare.
On 4/5/05, RIMM reported revenues for FY ‘05 to be $1.35 billion vs. $594.6 million in the prior year. And recently, RIMM reported 2Q revenues $490.1 million, up 8% from $453.9 million in the previous quarter. Sounds like business is good for RIMM and its stock should be in the range of its 52 week high of $103.56 instead of the lower range of $60.00. Per your 10/10/05 article finding, “News of the rejection sent RIM stock lower, to close down 3.4% at $64.55..” As of today, RIMM’s day range is $64.33 - $65.94. Do you think its to RIMM’s advantage to spend more money on attorney fees to drag this case out, or, fork up the $210 million in damages ? Wow !! 8.55% x ___ years = A lot of money, honey !!
And as to Samsung, after losing costly battle w/the DOJ, I highly doubt Samsung could afford to do legal battle w/TPL & PTSC.
Aside from the recent developments previously mentioned by TPL and PTSC, a couple of things to watch for in the coming days: 1Q-10QSB and TPL’s filing of an amended complaint due on 10/24/05.
Very interesting recent developments.
10/11/05: AMD reports sales of $1.523 billion and net income of $76 million for 3Q ending on 9/25/05.
10/17/05: PTSC files 12b-25 form for late filing stating "The Company requires additional time in order to adequately analyze appropriate accounting and disclosure matters related to transactions occurring during the quarter" which is from 6/1/05 to 8/31/05.
10/18/05: TPL names Dwayne R. Hannah as their new CFO - former Director of Finance for Cirrus Logic. MBA grad w/honors from USC, BS in Finance cum laude and has PhD in Finance from Harvard. Responsibilities are managing financial systems and personnel for the TPL Group as well as its Alliancense and Intelasys enterprises. Per TPL's website, "Intelasys, an early stage venture, which specializes in developing multicore processor solutions that target embedded applications requiring low power operation fast operating speed and a small footprint."
10/18/05: INTC reports 3Q revenue of $9.96 billion and net income of $2 billion. States $300 million settlement with MicroUnity, w/no mention of settlement w/PTSC in their 2Q and 3Q reports. INTC expects 4Q revenues to be in the range of $10.2 billion to $10.8 billion.
10/18/05: PTSC's 8K filing re Lowell Giffhorn, former CFO and current director of PTSC.
Form 8K
Item 8.01 OTHER EVENTS.
On September 23, 2005, Lowell Giffhorn, a former executive officer and a current director of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the "Company"), submitted a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association related to the termination of Mr. Giffhorn's employment with the Company. Mr. Giffhorn asserts that the termination of his employment with the Company was unlawful, retaliatory, wrongful, violated public policy, violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violated securities laws. Mr. Giffhorn demands damages of $1,500,000, which amount constitutes approximately 25% of the Company's current cash reserves. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself with regard to these claims. The parties are currently in the process of selecting arbitrators. The amount, if any, of ultimate liability with respect to the foregoing cannot be determined. Despite the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company at this time does not believe that the foregoing will have a material adverse impact on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
"Finding," "found"
Great article find by Parch702
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/
Apparently, most posters from other boards are missing the point.... which is not surprising.
“The law now grants the patent to the first inventor. The proposed bill would grant to the first to file.” PTSC is covered. Refer to USPTO, factual background of the case(s) and consult your attorney.
“The biggest complaint on patent trolls come from software firms. That is partly because one high-tech device such as the BlackBerry might contain technology based on dozens of patents. A suit challenging one patent could halt production on an entire device.”
Post 950
The cost of litigation is very expensive. It will be in Fujitsu, et al., best interest to settle these cases as soon as possible. Refer to post 947, “The impact of infringing upon the rights of other companies goes beyond having to pay significant fees. In the worst case, it could have a major economic impact on our company due to the loss of business opportunities and other issues. In addition, it could prevent us from providing products and services, thereby severely inconveniencing our customers..."
Hey TPL, if Judge Armstrong denies stay, how about getting a motion hearing date ASAP to enjoin defendants from manufacturing, producing, selling, and etc. And if Judge Armstrong grants this motion, make it public!!!
I personally would have not wanted TPL request a 60 day stay. Let's get on with the case(s). Make that motion to enjoin defendants. Take those oral depositions w/Moore, Fish, experts and executives from AMD & INTC. Bring this guys back for trial testimony and persuade the jury or bench to find in favor of TPL & PTSC. Awards for compensatory damages will be much greater than settlement for licensing/royalty fees.
PTSC’s License Agreements (2) AMD = $3,050,000.
PTSC & TPL’s Agreements w/INTC = $20,000,000.
Judgment in favor of Freedom Wireless = $128,000,000.
Settlement involving BlackBerry manufacturers = $450,000,000 (Wow!)
OT: AMD UPDATE: Dell Faces Challenges With Consumer Push
By Rex Crum
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones) -- Dell Inc. is expected to unveil a set of long- awaited products Wednesday for the high-priced consumer market, but some analysts say the top PC maker faces big hurdles as it looks to sell more entertainment gear.
Ironically, those challenges stem from some of the very things that have long been assets to Dell, including its focus on beating rivals on price and its exclusive use of microprocessors made by Intel Corp.
Company founder and Chairman Michael Dell and Mike George, the vice president of U.S. consumer business, will show off the gear at an event in New York.
A Dell spokesman declined comment on the specifics of the announcement, but analysts expect it will pertain to what George in June referred to as "the Lexus of our lineup"- a group of high-end desktop and notebook computers and new digital televisions aimed at customers willing to pay a premium for their electronic equipment.
Round Rock, Texas-based Dell had focused its past efforts at business customers looking to buy powerful personal computers at affordable prices, a strategy that served it well against rivals such as Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) and International Business Machines Corp. (IBM)
Now Dell is pushing into TV's and digital music players to boost sales growth. In those markets, however, it's coming up against rivals Sony Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL), respectively, two companies with loyal customers and long experience satisfying consumer appetites for entertainment gear.
"Looking at their consumer strategy, they don't have the brand name that Apple and Sony (SNE) have," said Shaw Wu, of American Technology Research.
Wu points to last week's release of Dell's new DJ Ditty music player as an example of the challenges the company is up against in the consumer market. The $99 device can hold 220 songs and is being marketed as an alternative to Apple's iPod Shuffle. But Apple's dominant market position and ubiquitous iPod marketing campaign will force Dell to play catch-up.
"They released it without much fanfare," said Wu, who rates Dell shares a " buy." "They're trying to hit the iPod Shuffle, but Apple is already so strong there."
Another of Dell's strengths is its direct-sales model, which lowers manufacturing costs and allows the company to build machines that cost less than similar ones made by its competitors.
But high-end customers, who tend to be more technology-savvy, are less focused on price and more concerned about what their gear can do, said Mark Stahlman, an analyst with Caris & Co. who rates Dell a "buy."
"We're getting to a situation where customers are no longer driven by price alone," Stahlman said. "Things like widescreen desktops and high-performance graphics are falling into customers concerns."
Stahlman also said that Dell's reliance on Intel (INTC), which doesn't have a 64-bit desktop processor, had an impact on what was considered a disappointing second fiscal quarter in which Dell's revenue fell shy of Wall Street estimates.
"Their inability to upsell to the U.S. consumer in the July quarter was partly due to the fact that they didn't have any AMD products," Stahlman said.
Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), has the lead over Intel in the area for the powerful 64-bit desktop processor market with its Athlon chips, according to Stahlman.
"There's a view that the Intel products are inferior," he said.
Shame, Shame on Sony
Why aren’t you disclosing to your shareholders the significant pending lawsuit of PTSC v. Fujitsu, et al. ?? Don’t you think your shareholders at least deserves a responsive explanation of this particular lawsuit ?? Especially now that you’ve introduced “Cell - The Next Generation Processor.”
2005 Sony Annual Report, R&D Strategies and Selection of Key Technological Fields, Page 23, CELL - The Next Generation Processor: “...the Sony Group, IBM Corporation and Toshiba Corporation revealed Cell, a high-performance processor under joint development since March 2001. Built on a revolutionary new multicore architecture, Cell features eight floating-point computing cores and a Power-based processor core, achieving clock speeds exceeding 4Ghz and supercomputer-level floating-point computing performance. We will incorporate Cell into next-generation audiovisual equipment, including computer entertainment systems, home servers and digital televisions.”
Joint development with the Sony Group, IBM and Toshiba Corporation. Hmmm. Refer to 9/22/05 PTSC Investment Profile: “The company’s strategy is to exploit its microprocessor technologies through product sales, licensing and strategic alliances.”
Hmmm, achieving clock speeds exceeding 4Ghz which will be incorporated into next-generation audiovisual equipment. Again refer to 9/22/05 PTSC Investment Profile: “The company’s strong patent position has enabled it to launch an aggressive intellectual property compliance program targeted at hundreds of companies using microprocessors with internal capabilities greater than 125 Mhz.
PTSC Investment Profile updated as of 9/22/05 which includes the following known information;
Recent Key Developments: 9/14/05 - “PTSC FY ‘05 rev. $2.98 million v. $76,417 a year ago. Net Loss ($2,693,550) or ($0.01) per diluted share v. net loss ($4,149,978) or ($0.03) per diluted share a year go.”
“During the 3rd quarter of FY ‘05 and the 1st quarter of FY ‘06, PTSC entered into licensing agreements w/AMD & Intel. The agreement w/AMD was worth $3,050,000. The $20 million agreement w/Intel produced net proceeds of approximately $6,700,000 for PTSC after revenue sharing w/TPL and the establishment of a working capital fund established by the two companies to pursue future settlements.”
Very encouraging and optimistic way to say “pursue future settlements” rather than “prosecute patent infringers.”
Amendment to Post
Corrected Sentence: "Judments unfavorable to the Group in disputes may IMPACT ON RESULTS OF GROUP operations and the Group's financial condition."
Shame, Shame on Toshiba
Why aren’t you disclosing to your shareholders the significant pending lawsuit of PTSC v. Fujitsu, et al?? I believe your shareholders at least deserves a responsive explanation to this particular lawsuit.
2005 Toshiba Annual Report, Risk Factors Relating to the Toshiba Group and its Business, Page 11, Section (1) Lawsuits:
“The group undertakes global business operation, and is involved in disputes, including lawsuits, in several areas. Due to differences in judicial systems it is possible that the Group may be subject to a court ruling requiring payment of amount far exceeding expectations, and/or a factor that results in significant difficulty in estimating potential costs of judgments. Judgments unfavorable to the Group in disputes may operations and the Group’s financial condition.
“In March 2005, a jury in the California Superior Court found the Company and its U.S. subsidiary, Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc., liable for US $465 million for misappropriation of NAND Flash-related trade secrets and related misconduct, as alleged by Lexar Media, Inc. The Company believes that the verdict rendered by the jury was in error and plans to pursue all available legal avenues to correct it.”
This Japanese Company believes the verdict rendered by an American jury was in error - yeah right!! And now they will pursue all available legal avenues to correct it - yeah right !! Hey pal, you’re gonna have to go through the American Judicial Chain of Appeals, not the Japanese Court of Appeals - Good luck bud. But before you do that, please keep in mind, that you still have a pending lawsuit w/PTSC & TPL which you have failed to disclose to your valuable shareholders and that your subsidiary is on American soil and doing business with the #1 consumer in the world - The Americans.
The price of doing business in America has gone up Toshiba. Settle NOW with PTSC & TPL or face the consequences of going through another lengthy trial with more money at stake.
Joint CMC Statement and Status Report filed.
It appears that TPL and Fujitsu 5 is seeking another 60 day stay for the same reasons previously mentioned on the 6/29/05 Status Report and Joint CMC Statement.
If Judge Armstrong denies the 60 day stay, TPL will request 30 days to file a supplemental and/or amended pleading substituting itself for PTSC t/w proposed dates for discovery cut-off, motion cut-off, pretrial and trial.
My Opinion:
I believe the price for settlement has gone up for the Fujitsu 5. I believe Fujitsu, et al, is trying to negotiate the rates for licensing/royalties fees at the same amount or less than AMD and INTC has agreed to pay. Remember, Alliacense website shows “...industry leaders Intel & AMD each recently purchased MMP portfolio licenses to cover their products, and to protect their corporate treasuries from massive exposure. Going forward, the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program will reward first movers in their industry sectors w/dramatic discounts. By design, this structure enables nimble and forward-thinking companies to disadvantage their competitors."
I anticipated that this could happen. Refer to post 891:
"Parties will probably request an extension for stay or proceed with discovery proceedures with the possibility of settling the case(s) within the year."
The cost of litigation is very expensive. It will be in Fujitsu, et al., best interest to settle these cases as soon as possible. Refer to post 947, “The impact of infringing upon the rights of other companies goes beyond having to pay significant fees. In the worst case, it could have a major economic impact on our company due to the loss of business opportunities and other issues. In addition, it could prevent us from providing products and services, thereby severly inconveniencing our customers..."
Hey TPL, if Judge Armstrong denies stay, how about getting a motion hearing date ASAP to enjoin defendants from manufacturing, producing, selling, and etc. And if Judge Armstrong grants this motion, make it public!!!
I personally would have not wanted TPL request a 60 day stay. Let's get on with the case(s). Make that motion to enjoin defendants. Take those oral depositions w/Moore, Fish, experts and executives from AMD & INTC. Bring this guys back for trial testimony and persuade the jury or bench to find in favor of TPL & PTSC. Awards for compensatory damages will be much greater than settlement for licensing/royalty fees.
As to the 8/26/05 Form 12b-25 which shows “... and also recently settled certain suits involving potential infringers of its intellectual property ..,” I still believe it involves parties other than AMD & INTC, unless this form was written by a high school drop out idiot. For example, refer to the joint CMC Statement and Status Report as to the Factual Background of the case(s). AMD was never mentioned as a party in the related lawsuits. The case involving Moore, TPL & Leckrone in 04-0618, involves Inventorship/Ownership of patents. That case settled and was dismissed by Judge Fogel on 6/9/05. Sole plaintiff INTC in 04-0439, sought declaratory judgment of noninfringment and/or invalidity of the '336..." That case settled and was dismissed by Judge Armstrong on 7/7/05. Since Fujitsu 5 did not settle and based on the statement provided on the 8/26/05 Form 12b-25, I assume there were/are outstanding lawsuits involving other parties not mentioned previously. Refer to Master Agr., Article VII, 7.6; Comm. Agr., Article III, 3.4; and consequently Comm. Agr., Article VI. As previously mentioned, consult your accountant and/or attorney.
Amendment to Post
"..and INTC (sole defendant.." should read "..and INTC (sole plaintiff.."
Telephonic CMC continued from 9/29/05 to 10/5/05 due to court's unavailibilty. Joint CMC Statement due 10 days prior to CMC which is 9/24/05 (Probably will be received by the court on 9/23/05, Friday instead of Saturday).
Refer to docket 03-5787 and/or consult your attorney.
Facts and My Opinions
Fact: AMD acquired 2 licenses from PTSC (Ignite and microprocessor patent portfolio).
My opinion: AMD dodged the silver lawsuit bullet and unlike most posters from various boards, AMD’s license agreements is significant to PTSC’s future earnings. Refer to 10k and consult your accountant.
Fact: PTSC v. TPL, et al., settled; stipulating to dismiss 3rd amended complaint w/prejudice as to the inventorship and ownership of patent ‘336, and entering final judgment in favor of TPL, et al., in which Moore is at least a co-inventor and TPL is at least a co-owner of patents ‘336, ‘148, ‘749, ‘890, ‘915, ‘703 and ‘584. Hence, the unification of patents and creation of “umbrella companies.”
My opinion: Hooray for settlement! Creation of “umbrella companies” is brilliant w/respect to financial and liability structure. Consult your accountant and/or attorney.
Fact: PTSC v. Intel settled ; Alliacense website shows “...industry leaders Intel & AMD each recently purchased MMP portfolio licenses to cover their products, and to protect their corporate treasuries from massive exposure. Going forward, the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program will reward first movers in their industry sectors w/dramatic discounts. By design, this structure enables nimble and forward-thinking companies to disadvantage their competitors.”
My Opinion: Hooray for settlement. Looking forward to 1Q-10QSB. Great to have #1 INTC & #2 AMD on Team PTSC & TPL - more ammunition just in case they would need to be subpoenaed to testify the validity of the Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio. Consult your attorney.
Fact: 8/26/05 Form 12b-25 shows “... and also recently settled certain suits involving potential infringers of its intellectual property ..”
My Opinion: This statement does not pertain to TPL, et al (lawsuit involving inventorship & ownership) and INTC (sole defendant which settled in early July ‘05). Again, looking forward to 1Q-10QSB, 8K (if applicable and upon approval of TPL, of course), & CMC Statement (if made public) due by 9/22/05 w/CMC to take place, if applicable, on 9/29/05. Refer to Master Agr., Article VII, 7.6; Comm. Agr., Article III, 3.4; and consequently Comm. Agr., Article VI. Consult your attorney.
Interesting Observation: Fujitsu Limited Annual Report 2005, published on 8/26/05, pg 23, section 2. Respecting Other Companies’ Rights, reads “The impact of infringing upon the rights of other companies goes beyond having to pay significant fees. In the worst case, it could have a major economic impact on our company due to the loss of business opportunities and other issues. In addition, it could prevent us from providing products and services, thereby severly inconveniencing our customers. We are creating a culture at Fujitsu that respects the patent rights of other companies, as well as building an infrastructure that allows all our technicians to utilize the ATMS/IR system to research rights held by other companies.”
OT: Be safe and wishing our sister states Texas, Louisana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama and Georgia a speedy recovery...
Hey Greeneyes, its great to hear from you. How did you do this weekend in fantasy football? I'm currently 1-1 (lost to a female counterpart and now the guys are razzing me). Just makin a quick stop-over at Agoracom and I-Hub. Hope everything is well w/you - go PTSC !!
Hey Greeneyes, dump R&B and come over to IHUB. I really dig your sense of humor.
Hootchi: That's a great point !! There could be numerous civil complaints for infringement filed under seal t/w motions to enjoin defendants from manufacturing, producing, selling, etc. Can you imagine the consequences of such companies if the court had taken judicial notice.....