There is a saying in Intellectual Property Law, one out of one hundred patents are worth "money", 14 or 15 out of 100 patents "protect" that one patent. The remainder are just plain worthless. The "fact" of the matter is that the sheer size of a patent portfolio does not make a patent portfolio "worth" something.
Regarding your comment, "The question that some analysts and investors have raised is whether so much new capacity is about to appear that it will be impossible for any company with its own factory to make money. The answer is speculative"
I don't see how it is "speculative". One can look at comparisons and use "history" as ones guide. DRAM was covered by patents, too! Competitors found different ways to manufacture DRAM.
Next you seem to believe that SanDisk's fabrication expertise is second to none. To my knowledge, SanDisk invests in Fabs., relying on others' expertise. That is a big difference. Hey, don't believe me, why don't you read their latest 10K....
Lastly, look at who is entering this space. I would hardly consider STM/Hynix and Micron Technology to be competitors who do not know how to fabricate semiconductors. In fact, both Hynix and Micron fabricate various forms of RAM in a highly competitive business. Given that, the competition that is entering the market is at the very least competent.
Like I said before, your comparison of Qualcomm to SanDisk is bad much like your knowledge of finance and IP law.
Nokia continues to rely on QUALCOMM chips, though some of its new CDMA models use its own chip.
Nokia is a licensee of Qualcomm but does not purchase Qualcomm ASICs.
Given the nature of the Internet as a valuable information resource, you should use it every once and a while instead of pulling "facts" out of thin air to support your conclusion. |
