Pierre (and Neil and others...)
There is a lot of realism in Pierre's posting. That's not to say that Neil's impressions as to the value of the PRST technology is wrong. Presstek has done some very impressive things.
However, thermal imaging technology (for example, PEARL imaging systems) is not unique to Presstek - see for example Creo (3244T) and Kodak (Approval). Nor are thermal plates unique to Presstek - see for example Kodak's thermal plates.
Theoretically, Presstek has two special assets : one is its accumulation of knowledge, patents and experience with more-or-less processless thermal plates and the other is a US Patent which relates to the on-press imaging of thermal ablation plates.
The former guarantees nothing - note that Kodak have publically declared that their thermal plates should be processless and dry in the future. Should they succeed, their plates will work on any "Presstek press". Note also that the wiping required of the ablated surface of the Presstek plate is, in a sense, a post imaging process that takes time and has problems.
The latter (on-press patent) is the strongest item in the Presstek armory since it makes it difficult for anybody to image Presstek-like plates on a press without a PRST license in the US. Let us see whether the patent is granted in Europe.
Presstek are right to call their patent collection strong since any patent has the presumption of validity. But you, Neil, should be concerned that PRST have not yet been granted European patents on their many US patents. Why is that significant? Because in the US the patent is granted by the USPTO alone. In Europe, a patent is published and interested parties (read potential competitors) can bring arguments of prior invention, obviousness, lack of invention and so on to defeat the patent before it is granted. In the US, reexamination places the burden of proof on the party requesting reexamination (presumption of validity). In Europe, the burden of proof is on the APPLICANT to refute the arguments of the opponents. Any patent also granted in Europe is, in this sense, a stronger patent than one granted in the US alone.
If you assume that the future earnings of PRST are primarily from plates, you have to ask long and hard (a) what market share they can achieve in their own market and (b) what margin they can really make. Consider the price per sq ft of PRST plates as compared to standard plates. They are very expensive. This will adversely affect demand and encourage others to get in this lucrative market. Also, bear in mind that currently their costs are thought to be high, (see also PRST filing re. Catalina) but they are going to have to get their costs down because they won't be able to maintain prices at the current levels for ever, and they need to keep some margin.
What does all this do the the future earnings of PRST? You who play the markets will have to decide. But it's a fascinating story. |
