<<compliance with the ANSI standard DMT requires licensing AMTX patents>>
How authoritive is such an assertion? Or is it just some myth and hearsay kept recycled in cyberspace? Do you have a URL or reference? I think the most recent and authoritive statement on the issue is straight from Amati: sec.gov
<< PATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS. There can be no assurance that any patents owned or controlled by the Company will provide commercially significant protection of the Company's technology or ensure that the Company may not be determined to infringe valid patents of others. The Company's patents have not been tested in court, and the validity and scope of the Company's proprietary rights could be challenged. The company has also received foreign patents, but since the patent
laws of foreign countries differ from those of the United States, the degree of protection afforded by any foreign patents may be different from that available under U.S. patent laws.
......
DEPENDENCE ON LARGE CUSTOMERS AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS. The Company expects to sell many of its telecommunication transmission products to large telecommunications service companies which serve as integrators for the various component systems that make up a video-on-demand or multimedia system. These systems integrators in turn sell the systems to telecommunications providers for distribution to their subscribers. The Company is largely dependent on these systems integrators for the introduction of its products to field trials. There can be no assurance that systems integrators will select the Company's products for field trials or, if they do initially select the Company's products, that they will continue to use them. In addition, telephone companies are generally reluctant to deploy new technologies available only from a single source, especially when the supplier is as relatively small as the Company, and often require the availability of alternative sources before deploying a new technology. This reluctance may put the Company at a competitive disadvantage relative to some of its competitors. Further, acceptance of the ompany's products by these customers may require Company to relinquish rights to its technology or products. There can be no assurance, however, that even if the Company were to relinquish such rights to its technology or products, telephone companies would deploy the Company's ADSL or VDSL products.>>
None of the competitors, ADI/Aware, Alcatel, Orckit, has licesed or acknowledged the need to license. I certainly wouldn't bet my money on Amati's patents.
<<They can, but can they claim to be "standards-based DMT" and can they prove wire interoperability with "standards-based DMT" implementations? >>
The press said "standards-based DMT", not ANSI standard, further weakening your argument. Standard setting is a very political process. Amati is only a small member of the ADSL forum, and can be easily muscled by other powerful members. (Check out the membership directory at adsl.com Can you name just one company that has proven to be a good investment because it collects royalty from a standard. You are free to try the V.34 modem standard, ATM standard, or any other standard.
The need for interoperability is seriously over-blown. ADSL modems are connected full-time and not required to interoperate with others. If a customer buys from only one vendor, the issue is also nonexistent.
<<And the standard does include AMTX-patented technology.>>
The standard you refered to was endorsed in March 1993 as per info at Amati's site (can't give a URL because it's down now). For it to be endorsed, details have to be released to the public domain. Amati cannot later file a patent claiming ownership of something already in the public domain. If you run a patent search, (go to patents.cnidr.org, and use search string "an/amati",) you will find that all of Amati's patents are filed after March 1993. Conclusion? Amati does not own any patent covering the standard. The closest Amati has claimed, in the 10-K, are "patent applications", which are not the same as patents. Whatever Jim Wilkinson said are inconsistent with the above. They can't be taken seriously for the addtional reason that you have not given a reference for the reader to verify the validity.
<<agreed. AMTX has indicated they expect licensing revenues to cover R&D>>
Amati got $10 million from Soros at the end of last year. Now it wants another $5 million by selling stocks cheap. It is easy to extrapolate that it will be runnig out of cash at the end of this year. With no cash and no contract (CopperGold and TI chip not yet sampling), the company will be in serious trouble as per its own words:
<< NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPITAL. During 1996, the Company secured a line of credit for $1,500,000, which was subsequently increased to $2,000,000, and a capital lease line of $1,500,000, which was subsequently increased to $1,700,000, and entered into the Investment Agreement with the Selling Stockholders which provides to the Company up to $15 million in equity financing. As of June 1, 1997, proceeds of $10,000,000 have been received pursuant to this financing agreement and the Company has exercised its put right to take down the final $5,000,000 in financing. The Company's future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including sales levels, progress in product development programs, the establishment of collaborative agreements, and costs of manufacturing facilities and commercialization activities. The Company may require funding in addition to that available under its line of credit, capital lease line and the Investment Agreement. There can be no assurance that such additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, if at all. If additional funds are required and not available, the Company could be required to curtail significantly or defer, temporarily or permanently, one or more of its research and development programs or to obtain funds through arrangements that may require the Company to relinquish certain technology or product rights. >>
As I said before, Show me the money.
Charles |
