Hi Edward-
Playing catch up (and also had to bandage my fingers after playing PAIR friday until this am).
I understand and agree with your assessment.
The following was the basis of my "logic":
1) I stated that Amati had problems closing contracts because they were asking too much, including significant prepayments, for simple ANSI licensing.
2) You countered (as I understood you) that Amati's "too much, including significant prepayments" (allowing me the above phrased hypothesis) was not *just* for licensing, but for additionals such as co-development, and in the case of USRX, outright ownership.
(I still disagree with this, maintaining:
1) that there were attempts at extremely pricey *licensing* which included prepayments.
2) that those who have licensed did NOT yield to the pricey Amati demands.)
Your argument seemed not that they didn't ask for these things (2 above), but that they were for MORE than simply licensing.
I then suggested that if this were the case, if we examined earnings this week, we should see if AMTX was successful at squeezing out great terms for their co-development contracts.
But as you have pointed out, many alternative favorable (to Amati) contract points may well have been won without the need to see them in this quarter's, or even this year's, earnings.
Thanks as always for your respectful and well-stated points.
(Seems with Bell Atlantic contract, ADSL is around the corner.)
Regards-
Steve |
