Hello Wolff,
> Mr. Lemon stop BASHING me for holding a skeptical view on
> XYBR.
I'm sorry, but I am in no way "bashing" you for holding a skeptical view on XYBR. I will admit that I am disappointed that you seem to be unable to have a civil conversation about technology, and present your perspective in an adult manner.
Maybe it is simply your language skills which are causing the problem, but the terminology that you use, and the statements that you make, always seem to be more oriented towards being aggressive and offensive.
I can appreciate the skeptical view, as this is quite common when new and innovative ideas are first presented to the world ... people were no doubt skeptical about the Wright brothers and their "crazy" ideas about flying. People were also skeptical about the cell phone and it's potential. People are also skeptical about the future of the Internet, and obviously wearable computers.
I do not appreciate, however, your insistence on making all of this discussion into personal attacks. I have offered several times, and will continue to offer, that we keep this discussion on a technical and philosophical level, and that we drop all the name calling, and personal attacks. I will agree to abide by this ... if you do. If you insist on deviating from this, then I will deviate also ... ;-)
> Mr. Lemon to avoid undue confusion I believe you are not
> a straight poster, and that you linguistically and
> knowingly emote false impressions to readers, and further
> that you mischaracterize my positions in order to benefit
> your conclusion which is not open to reasonable
> challenge.
And Wolff, to avoid any undue confusion I believe that you are not a straight poster, and that you linguistically and knowingly emote false impressions to readers, and further that you mischaracterize information in order to benefit yourself in some weird and twisted way.
But I, unlike you, am willing to listen to what you have to say, and will attempt to augment your beliefs with mine, and will accept your responses to these. I will then also continue to "emote" my impressions of the industry and marketplace, and examine technological evolution.
So I guess that we both have perspectives of each other ... the biggest difference is that you will constantly attempt to make offensive accusations of position, and I will only do that in defense of myself and others. And so we find ourselves where we are.
I again will offer, that if you want to keep this civil, then we can. I would truly like to learn more about your perspective and background, and hope that you too are open to learning and discussing.
> Other than you position on me, I am not sure what your
> position is Mr. Lemon
... and so I will attempt to answer your questions as best as I can.
> 1. Did you buy the stock up at 18-23 when you were
> posting to me earlier?
I doubled my position at $14.50, and I am currently watching the Nasdaq to determine if/when I do that again. I am more than glad to treat this additional market correction as a buying opportunity ...
> More importantly is you assessment a recommendation to
> buy this stock
I'm sorry, but I believe that the SEC has some interesting rules about recommending trades of stocks, and I *know* that this is an area that I do not have detailed knowledge. Even though I am working on my web site and newsletter for discussing "inevitable" technologies, I do not ever "recommend" stocks for purchase or sale. I am more than glad to tell you what trades I am making, or have made.
> To be clear I do not think that XYBR is a safe investment
> for any price over 5 dollars, from where the stock came,
> I see no material events to change that impression
So is that a "Sell" recommendation in the current market? I'm sure that everyone here would like to know!
> 2. Mr. Lemon are you concerned about the Auditors
> concerns, the cash position, the further dilution, the
> purchase of a company with former XYBR insiders involved?
"Auditors concerns" - if you are referring to the "standard language" that was included in the SEC docs that you posted (numerous times), no I am not concerned about it. This is standard language, and as I have been through several start-ups I am well aware of the risks of new ventures.
"cash postion" - nope ... not concerned here either. Again, as I have been through numerous start-ups I fully understand the implications of a start-up and fully realize that it's not quite as nice as the cushy desk jobs ... but that in return for the work, the payoff is much greater.
"further dilution" - nope ... I don't look to this either, since I'm not a greedy person, and I am content with an investment that increases in value. I'm not one who "puts all his eggs in one basket" and so in my portfolio if this stock does ok I am quite happy. It has done well for me so far.
"purchase of a company with former XYBR insiders involved" - well, as for this one you do not appear to look across the market and see that this occurs all over the place. It doesn't bother me at all. As I have just completed some consulting and doing analysis at Novell again, I watched as Novell bought several start-ups which were actually Novell employees who left to form these start-ups. So Novell bought back 3-4 companies with "former insiders" just in the last year or so. This is actually quite common.
What I see in this situation is actually a very good thing. It appears that some people at XYBR realized that for many of the applications of wearable computers there is a requirement for "Workflow" application software. This type of software is often used where repetitive "task lists" must be created and logged. This fits well with aircraft maintenance, power plant inspections, etc. It appears that some employees (or was it one?) left and joined/formed a company with a focus on workflow management software.
Both companies now enjoy a synergy in what they do ... one creating the application software, the other providing the platform. Makes sense to me ...
> 3. How much value do you give the Patents, I have
> estimated the value at 39 Million over 4 years. That is
> an optimistic evaluation as well, assuming a 100% capture
> of the market. Would you like to offer you estimate?
I have attempted to answer this question on two other occasions. I'm sorry that my answers were not clear enough for you. I'll try again ...
I am not an expert on Patents, and actually have only worked around them on a peripheral basis. I know that they have business values that can be exploited to some degree in negotiation, and in funding discussions. But beyond that, I have no real way to "value" these assets with a fixed dollar amount. I'm glad to see that you have the expertise to be able to value these at $39MM over 4 years. I have to admit that I would really like to learn the process that you used to create this estimate ... it is something that I could learn from you.
As a side note, I actually think that in this day and age, most ideas no longer have a life-time that allows the patent process to be as useful. In a couple of my jobs I have submitted ideas for patenting, but I have left it to others to spend their time doing the paperwork, etc. I simply move one to other ideas ... ;-)
> 4. I continue to show strong industry motions to move
> away from any CORE concept, the price of RISC
> processors is trivial, and designing in as Static core
> both constrains size considerations and limits
> functionality, not to mention it will increase costs.
> What is your view, other than you personal evaluation on
> me.
a. In the past is has been proved over and over that the processor is irrelevant if it doesn't have the applications that run on it. If you observe the failures of numerous RISC processors in the past ... MIPS, Alpha, etc. The only one that I am watching right now is the new Transmeta processor ... but that is because it will be able to emulate the Intel architecture to support Intel-based operating systems. It also has ties to the Linux market space ... another popular "full blown OS" ... which has a very large following. I am enthusiastic about these processors, and I hope that Xybernaut is already working with the prototypes.
b. I'm sorry that I do not quite understand your second half of the question. You seem to say that designing a "Static core both constrains size considerations and limits functionality, not to mention it will increase costs"
If I look at the current breadth of micro-motherboards available today, it appears that size is disappearing as an issue. With the new Intel chipsets (801, etc.) the entire motherboard is dropping to a size where the connectors are going to be the biggest problem. (Hence the development of standards such as USB ...) When you couple this with your comment about limiting functionality then I am not sure what you mean. I am sitting here now looking at a full Intel Pentium III motherboard, with "full functionality" of my laptop, and it is 3"x5"x.5" ... without the hard drive. A laptop hard drive that I am using with it is about the same size ... and it's only a 10GB Travelstar from IBM. So what functionality am I lacking?
As for your comment about the fact that these somehow relate to "increased costs" can you be more specific and tell me why? I do know that if I am willing to use a slightly larger micro-motherboard today I can cut my costs further in the trade for size, but are you suggesting that somehow there is a computer architecture (RISC or otherwise) that is resistant to this?
> 5. You choose and continue to choose to attack me, WHY,
> why not address the concepts I raise?
You choose to continue to attack me, and my cousin, WHY, why not address the concepts that I raise?
(Wow ... sounds like an echo in here! Maybe you need to look in the mirror ... I am attempting to address your comments, but you seem to always "come out swinging" ... I'll be more than glad to swing back!)
> 6. I have shown devices that contain all the key elements
> of the Core that are in production today. Do you feel
> that the Core patent can withstand these challenges?
You have *not* shown any such devices. I have yet to see any such device, and in my post to you I took the time to outline the differences. I have asked you to please provide a detailed breakdown (like I have) that compares these technologies. Until you are prepared to do so, I have to say that you have failed to convince me.
As for the challenges to the Core patent, I am not a patent lawyer (perhaps you are) and so I can only say that the fact that a patent exists will ensure that a wide range of legal tactics can be taken, and that a lot of discussion and negotiation can occur which would not happen otherwise.
I will again state, that I am not an expert at patents, and I do not look to them for success. They are simply tactics that are part of an overall strategy.
> 7. The CEO said on radiowallstreent that he expected the
> 5000++ MA4 to be improved functionally and have a
> cost reduction of 25%, he further said he expect that 25%
> to hold true for the MA6. That is about 2 years of
> product and prices....why do you discount what the CEO
> said himself? I think that very clever of you.
So you are saying that the CEO is correct in everything that he says? So you agree with him, and his philosophy and strategy of Xybernaut? Are you saying to us all that you now think that everything the CEO states is fact and going to occur? Or are you simply trying to say that he is only right if it differs with me, rather than you?
I think that the "clever" one here is you, Mr. Wolff, not I. I like the way that you will pick and choose when various facts are true, and when they are not.
As I am watching the decreasing costs of these systems, I have to look at the design and application of the MA platforms. There are numerous ways in which Xybernaut is designing an "industrial" product which has much higher mechanical requirements than a "consumer" model. From my research I believe that Xybernaut is spending a lot of money in some areas that are not required in a "consumer" model ... and Xybernaut could cut costs significantly for a "consumer" model. The problem is that they would then cannibalize their own higher-margin market at a time that might be too early. So yes, I disagree with the CEO in places ... his mindset and corporate direction have a different focus right now.
> 8. There is no compelling application for the Wearable
> computer; it will go the way of the Newton without one.
> What is it? Be specific!
I know that this seems to be a very difficult thing for you to understand ... I have attempted several ways to reply to your question. The compelling application is mobility ... I'm not sure how else I can expand on this. What is the "compelling application" for the cell phone? It isn't anything to do with "verbal communications" because we had that with the "wired" phone in our homes. The value was that we could get all the functionality of a full featured telephone ... in a "mobile" form factor. And it's important to notice that there is a very significant difference between a "cordless phone" and a "cell phone" - a "cordless" phone follows your model or having a "terminal" which connects us back to our "wired" phone - a "cell phone" however is an entirely different phone, complete and fully functional, that we can take anywhere, and that has no connections back to our home telephone.
Mobility is the key ... I'm no longer stuck at my desk ...
> The Palm 7 is old technology already, you should expect
> the next version out shortly, your analysis is contains
> the common fallacy that the competition is static, and
> not a moving target. You know as well as I that the Palm,
> Handspring and other serious teams are focusing moving
> the ball forward, and they have the resources, and the 7
> to 8 Million users of Palm to build off of.
So actually I am *very* aware of the dynamic nature of the competition, and I am following it closely. It appeared to me that you were completely unaware of what the cell phone vendors are up to, and you seem to know nothing of the Quartz and Symbian efforts. Even now, you attempt to throw out comments about Palm ... but they are dead as far as I can tell. I am well versed in the Palm efforts, and Palm "clones" ... I have examined and worked with the Handspring, and others. But these products have large gaping holes in their expandability and application development environments. They also have limited display capabilities. They are the "cordless phones" of the computer industry ... not the cell phones.
I would place bets on Symbian before any other ... but then we come back to the point that we agreed upon: Our Axiom that PDAs require a PC. And so if the PC reaches the right size and price point, and we have the mobility, then PCs make more sense.
> 9. I calculated MA4 sales over the last TWO years to be
> less than 1000 total units. Sales divided by average
> selling cost. In any regard, sales of the MA4 are dismal,
> and do not contain any evidence of a strong demand
> within corporations or users. What do you make of the
> 1000 unit sales over 2 years?? Lemon?
I think this makes complete sense, and is expected. In any new technology that is creating the future there is a process called "ramp up" that can take time. This is usually due to many factors: a) the product must be tested and altered to address customer needs b) due to these adjustments, the quantities are low, and so prices are higher c) the higher prices effect sales
Are you suggesting that light-bulbs sold like hotcakes when they were invented?
> 10. Finally a straight question from you?."What is the
> killer App for the laptop" I would suggest what drove the
> adoption of the laptop was high up corporate managers
> that spend much time in the air.
Wow ... that sounds nice. I would beg to differ that it was the "mobile worker" that first used these devices, and not necessarily in the air. The "travelling saleman" and "travelling technician" were huge users before the "desk job managers" were flying around the country using laptops.
> The needs for size and battery life were the driving
> needs. From 1993-1997 I would say that is what drove
> sales and adoption of the laptop. Not to say there were
> exceptions, but it was the Corporate World need to enable
> the managers in what was dead time for them.
I would suggest that portability/mobility was the biggest factor by far, and only more recently have the reductions in size and larger strides in battery life taken over. I don't think that "dead time" was a thought as much as a way to stay in touch and communicate. People have *always* had work to do on airplanes ...
> Btw if the MA5 or MA6 better not have wireless
> communications capabilities or they will be banned on all
> air travel.
I would beg to differ. Please feel free to refer us all to the FCC or FAA regs that will outline this. As I am working extensively in 802.11b wireless LAN technologies, and have even met with both airlines and airports about this 11Mbps wireless technology, I have become well versed in the regulations. I have such a card in my laptop ... and I'm not banned. So why would you suggest that this would be different for using my card in any other computer?
You seem to move quickly to a "scare tactic" with this statement, instead of using facts.
In all reality, the folks at Xybernaut have an even better solution ... they support PCMCIA cards which can easily be added and removed without any issues. This is a feature which reinforces the power of their architecture ... the flexibility and expandability.
If your statement were true, then I would not be able to use my Handspring on airplanes either ... they have both cellular and 802.11b interfaces available or in development! So PDAs will be "banned" also?
Since your list of questions is long enough, I will address the rest in my next post.
Thank you for the explicit questions ...
Scott C. Lemon |
