[or not]
<< AMTX does not have a patent on DMT.>>
never said it did.
<<AMTX only has patents on some tweaks on DMT. Nobody knows what the heck they are, or how much they are worth. Nor is Amati confident that they will get any licensing as per S-3.>>
nonetheless, compliance with the ANSI standard DMT requires licensing AMTX patents. Admittedly this will not mean a lot of money for AMTX but it's better than a kick in the pants. The cautionary S-3 statements are just that, cautionary. Virtually every paragraph of a prospectus includes couching like that.
<<Competitors can offer DMT w/o paying Amati>>
They can, but can they claim to be "standards-based DMT" and can they prove wire interoperability with "standards-based DMT" implementations? To deny that a standard exists is silly, there in the Ascend press release is Xu Zhi Qun, deputy general manager of Shanghai Bell, saying, "Alcatel's DMT-based ADSL has been endorsed by many carriers world wide. Its standards-based architecture has proven to be flexible" etc. It does carry weight. And the standard does include AMTX-patented technology. Jim Wilkinson has documented this extensively on this thread.
<<Many of the so-called "Amati patents" are actually patented by employees of Stanford U. and are properties of Stanford U. Why Amati investors think they can get a cut is beyond me. But one thing is certain, they have just read the hype, hype, hype..., but not the fine prints in the S-3, 10-k, etc.>>
my understanding is that AMTX has exclusive licenses with Stanford that include the right to sub-license. Again, JW can address this better that I.
<<If there is any royalty, it will be small. This is the condition for Amati's patents to be part of the standard. How small? Take a look at Qualcomm and figure out how much it makes from its CDMA patents.>>
agreed. AMTX has indicated they expect licensing revenues to cover R&D, nothing more. but again, that's the "cautionary" line.
<[remainder]>
blah blah blah.
Mark |
