Kicking ass n' taking cash! That's AMPEX today.
Euphorically kicking ass! Very busy.
That's my first take on AMPEX today. Led by an ever energenic multi-tasking Captain of industry - Mr. Edward J. Bramson.
In regards to my compliments on the risk of iNEXTV - Ed "...if we did not sieze the opportunity we may have looked back and wondered... I knew when to quit and I did..."
The meeting:
Next meeting all shareholders plan for an extra hour afterwards at Starbucks or the Ritz to exchange notes.
We (Chriscraft 2000, Duke, SFC) apologize for bee lining to Ed, Craig and Joel after the meeting as we missed important interaction with other shareholders attending.
*) Ed’s focus –
Major corporate effort is closing deals on cell phones, slightly possible this year, next year definitely.
Cell phones need our compression technologies because of their VERY limited bandwidth. And, their race to increase mega pixels performance.
*) Kodak –
if we win fine. If we loose, we loose 4 months of royalties. If we don’t follow through on our suit our other clients will be pissed! That being said, we have gotten a great portion of the licensing from almost 80% of the market using “121”. Additionally, Kodak will be coming to us sooner or later as they can’t manufacture cameras without using specific compression technologies of which our in-house engineers pioneered, patented and were first to manufacture product for commercial use. Would be better for them to come now and lock in a rate then spend money drawing the final outcome in courts.
*) Cell phones -
Entire company resources are focused on this market segment. One of our cell phone licenses has described how technology is used. Some manufacturers of cell phone cameras outsource the “parts” so the manufacturer has to be schooled by our engineers on our embedded technology. This process of schooling is necessary ground work in coming to amicable terms…
Manufacturing a cell phone there are many different parts from outsource vendors. The chips are packed with compressed computer coding. The challenge is taking chip apart down to the core and displaying to the manufacture how our technologies are used (embedded).
First scenario from “teaching” - we get manufacturer (H) to pay royalties for their product - cell phone (B). On the flip side we teach the chip maker (Q) who is supplying (H) with chips for (B) how our technologies are used and get (Q) paying royalties for chips to different product manufacture (S). In this process we learn of possible customer uses for chips from (Q) in different/other products which may give AMPEX access to HUGE markets.
Second scenario from teaching – Chriscraft2000 will supply this from his Q & A.
(Paste of Chris post) - Talks are very serious looking at revenues from cell phones very late 05 but more like 2006. Here is the issue, directly from C. McKibben, most if not all cell phone makers get their parts from outside vendors, so these cell co's really do not know what is in their phones, that is what will take some time to decipher who has what technologies,none the less they are in preliminary discussions with them and the market and opportunities are enormous.
Long story short –end product manufactures and chip manufacturers have to be “educated” in how our technologies are in their products, how they got there, how to better tweak then and what the royalty is for licensing our digital patent basket.
*) Will we accept lump sums? Rather have streaming royalties as lump sums do not give us full value of X% on each product produced.
*) If ITG is getting used, good! because it’s in the basket of patents we license.
*) SFC - Q: In the 10K it mentions audit of licensees – is that financial or intellectual property – are we counting product or do we get to see their computer code?
Ed B. - A: It is financial. However we have a licensee who is “sharing” how cell phones work.
*) SFC – Q: When can we get a dividend, cash back to shareholders?
Ed B. – A: After we pay down debt, pension, invest in R & D we will focus on getting cash back to shareholders as we overcome our financial challenges.
*) SFC – Q: what is your vision of R & D for the future, any “visions”?
ED – A: Company has lots of work first –
getting through the NEW ADS systems for governments,
licensing teams,
legal teams, etc…
now if I (Ed) had money to spend ya’ know I would find something…. So for the moment we are focused on cellphone…
*) SFC – Q: Are our patents used in HDTV – plasma, LCD type?
ED – A: I don’t know personally BUT OUR LICENSING TEAM BELIEVES OUR PATENTS WILL BE USED!
*) Ed described DVD and Set top cable boxes but I glazed over thinking through the 10K and my next question.
One of the other shareholders got a very detailed answered on this matter.
*) Ed started wincing when he looking in my direction and ended the meeting (LOL)
*) Keepered Media – (Ed – Keepered What? (LOL) – )
Ed: brilliant technical invention. No one is using it today and by the time it is used the patents will have expired.
*) After April 6, 2006 the payments are coming from our licensee’s.
However, should the payments stop, we send a letter requesting WHY they don’t think they are using our technology. no payment in 30 days the license is revoked. Then we sue.
*) Patents royalties will be paid for use in U.S., European, Asian markets. The significance of which may drive our revenues from 20 million to possible 60 million.
*) Manufacturers use one of our patents or a dozen of them in their product “A”, the royalty rate is the same.
*) When DVD’s and Cell phones ( product 1 and product 2) are made by manufacturer “X” THEN we get 2 payments from “X”, one for each product.
*) SFC hits up Joel – Q: So Joel who’s strategy was to go after “them” through the ITC.
Joel – A: Ed’s. The ITC changed the law in regards to domestic industry. Specifically – the ITC considers (I.P.) licensing a domestic industry somewhere after 2000.
Good night.
SFC |
