<I, like Edward, also read this or understood this as discussed (I think conjectured) in Pat's post at the time. Like Reagan youre memory SteveG is interestingly selective. The conjecture seems fully
reasonable.>
Shana,
I said *I* never heard of this, not that it wasn't written here. A simple referential post would have been far more effective than such a silly, wide-reaching personal swipe (why bring in Reagan? Sheesh!).
<Who do you think you are kidding SteveG? The Siemens and Sumutimo deals are distribution not codevelopment>
While you are partly right about Sumitomo (distribution and shared "support", but no reference to development), you better check your facts yourself before throwing around haughty criticism:
--------------------------------------------------------
Siemens and Amati Announce Joint Development for High Speed ADSL in
Access Network
SAN JOSE, Calif., and MUNICH, Germany -- Amati Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq: AMTX), the leading developer of Asymmetric
Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) Discrete Multi-Tone (DMT)
technology, and Siemens AG, a world leader in Asynchronous Transfer
Mode (ATM) technology, today announced a strategic development
partnership aimed at connecting ATM to ADSL transmission lines.
The resulting solution will offer a migration path to higher speed
services -- up to 8 Mbps -- while interoperating with ATM services.
In an industry first, Siemens AG's Public Communication Networks
Group and Amati demonstrated an ADSL/ATM solution in March at CeBit
'97 in Hanover, Germany. Show attendees were able to use the
ADSL/ATM system to retrieve information such as high-resolution
graphics and video clips from the Internet in real time.
Under the terms of the agreement, Siemens AG's Public Communication
Networks Group, Italtel (a STET-Siemens company) and Amati will
work together on next generation ADSL technology, including joint
development for the transmission of data packets via ADSL. In
addition, Siemens will market Amati's ADSL modems and ADSL
distribution systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
<and nobody except you is saying they mean prepayments showing up on tuesday. This isnt Edwards theory but somethng you just threw in illogically. If it wasnt so transparent I'd conclude you were playing some sneaky twisted game here.>
Let me explain the logic.
I made the claim (suppositionally confirmed by at least one other poster here) that Amati lost deals to major networking companies as a result of their (Amati's) attempt to extract unreasonable licensing arrangements (and that these included substantial prepayments).
Edward, seemingly addressing my assertion, gives what he understood to be the REASONS for the failed negotiations (obviously a function of price) with the following:
"A) Pat and others here have stated that the reason that these licensing deals fell through, in particular for USRX, is that the parties could not agree on a deal on what is at stake here. What is at stake is NOT ONLY "the patents essential to standards compliance" but codevelopment and in the case of USRX, purchase and total control of the TI C6X DSP code for implementing the DMT modem. This is something sooooo much larger than simply licensing the Standard DMT patents."
Edward is suggesting that the failure for the parties to agree to on a reasonable price was the result of NOT simply of licensing arrangements, but of additional considerations (such as codevelopment, and arguably, "support" - which would obviously require significantly larger dollars than simply licensing the ANSI standard at a fair and reasonable price.)
To that effect I addressed his rationale, that if the failed negotiations were due to the more costly "additionals", then we should see the result of these "additionals" with the recent and existing contracts in the earnings statement.
Edward is still, of course, free to disagree with my original contention - that Amati outpriced itself from a number of potentially major relationships.
But to the extent that he chooses to explain the failure as a result of the *justifiably* higher costs of these "additionals", we would then NEED to see confirmation that this was the case from those who DID license with "additionals".
Do you get it now?
(You know, these exchanges don't have to be so "sharp".)
Steve
|
