<I stand by my original post. There is a licensing agreement with ADI. When Tac or anyone else at Amati says there's no announcement re:
ADI, they're equally correct. By that they mean there's no press
release ready.>
If you continue to say so, OK. But CONTRARY to your representation above Pat, AMATI has reported to have said there is NOT one, just as I have referenced. And I further don't see where they said in this regard, as you have now represented, that there simply is "no press release ready":
"There is a rumor making the rounds on the internet that Analog
Devices has already agreed to licensing agreement with Amati.
Apparently, the festive wellspring emanates from the Amati board at
Silicon Investor, where a prominent participant claimed on Monday that
Amati Vice President of Business Development, Ronald Carlini, told her
that ADI had licensed. We have not contacted Mr. Carlini but upon
hearing the rumor, we did query Benjamin ("Tac") Berry, Vice President
of Marketing. Although he noted that ADI is presently discussing a
licensing arrangement with Amati(status-quo), no agreement has been
reached. Beware! There is a lot of, shall we say, religious passions
surrounding ADSL stocks."
techstocks.com
<When you speak of honor, look at your own words. Your posting that
the ADI license is incorrect is as untrue as you're accusing my
statement of being. It works both ways.>
Well, we have what YOU said and we have what AMATI said in RESPONSE to what you said. The company contradicted what you said. I simply reported what the company said. I presume my honor will stay intact by doing so.
If Amati eventually licenses to ADI, THEN you will have been right in predicting they would (and *I* certainly think Amati NEEDS to license to ADI so they have a source of chips), but that won't change the reported fact that when you said it, the company called you WRONG.
<No one anywhere divulges the dollar or percentage amounts connected with licensing.>
Amati has revenues from ICOT with IBM. Amati had a pre-payment from MOT for CG which was likely reported on that Q's 10Q. MOT co-developed CG with Amati, and will be entitled to their percentage. Amati will have to buy CG from MOT. Amati will get the best possible rate on CG chips. They may also get preferential quantites. Obviously for accounting purposes there are dollars somewhere, but how many *net* dollars to Amati is a question. Analysts should be able to get a better sense of the arrangement from the 10Q, if and when CG ships. Until then, to represent that Amati's bottom line will benefit in any appreciable way from licensing to CG is hopeful speculation, IMO.
<As for owning up to errors, I've made several, but they were never
calculated and I've admitted it when they've been proven as such.>
I'm wondering then, why you still won't admit (even in THIS post) that the company contradicted what you said about ADI/AMATI license.
<The USR contract was the only major one that's gone sour. It was very close and then fell out.>
How do you know if and how close this was? If Amati wanted a pre-payment ransom (as we have heard from several sources) for their DMT, how close COULD it have been? These are exactly the kind of spin statements that unfortunately cast a cloud over all of your reports here.
<There was one other contract that I said would come out "after Supercom" and I think I've figured out which it is --- and the Soundview analyst confirmed it --- but we neither one know how soon it'll be out>
But you posted previously, in the clandestine manner you are so fond of, that this would be out by the 15th, or some such past date (which I will only spend the effort to find IF you claim you did not).
<please give me credit when proven correct>
I will be ONLY too happy to do so.
To clarify, if you maintain that x is true *now* or will happen by *y*, and it is not /does NOT - then even if it occurs later, what you maintained would STILL not have been correct. A simple disclaimer (not unlike as you have done on occasion, recently) to the effect "I THINK this could or might happen, and within this time frame, for such and such reasons", might give your posts a little better feel of objectivity (which you have previously admitted, you are not).
As I have said before, I think this is an art/science imagination/vision kind of thing. In science, the emphasis is on having as much surety/confidence in one's statements as possible, with a much stronger tendency to understate than to overstate, on seeing clearly and not introducing a bias into a report.
A company's PR dept is the usual source of touting/extravagance/hyperbole on a stock. IMO, an investment forum should try to FILTER out the hyperbole, with an extra measure of conservativism, to more carefully evaluate the fundamentals. Anyway, that's how I see it.
And *I* mind froth, filler, cheerleading and being unable to admit a wrong. And I'm not saying you're guilty of any of these --- that's for you to decide --- but there are some who are.
Regards-
Steve |
