Dave, at the risk of getting too far afield from the issues directly affecting SanDisk, I can only point out that your own information sources seem to be questionable. Nokia attempted to use its own chip in a CDMA handset and later recalled the entire model because of problems. Nokia was forced to use QCOM chips, which were sold not to Nokia directly but to a Chinese company working with Nokia (and also licensed by QCOM).
As to the percentage of patents that really prove valuable, the average is probably not a useful statistic because of the huge variations from that average. My son has 12 patents and all of them are now producing revenue. That's 12 out of 12.
SanDisk and Toshiba jointly own and operate a fabrication facility, with each company contributing its specialty. I am sure that the companies you mention, such as Micron, have a lot of practical experience, but not necessarily in making the kind of chips used in flash memory. Even Intel was unable to produce a competitive flash memory unit, despite its having made valuable discoveries in multilevel cell fabrication, which SanDisk adapted and made work for its double density chips. A company just doesn't start making NAND chips from scratch. The growth in demand is now concentrated in NAND chips. There is likely to be a glut of NOR chips now or in the near future. Most of the analysts covering SanDisk don't even know the difference between NAND and NOR, so how could anyone give them credibility?
If you don't like the QCOM--SNDK comparison, then consider the variable speed windshield wiper, now used in almost every automobile. There are plenty of ways to make windshield wipers that work at varying speeds, but the one which works best happens to be patented, as GM, Ford, and several others found to their disbelief, and ended up paying royalties to the inventor.
I could go on, but in this case I think I'm talking to a stone wall.
Art |
