Hi , This is a reprint from the Copy thread.
This concerns EPID technolgy for displays and yes, it exists, I have seen working models produced on and from a manufactoring line.
To: tonto (847 )
From: Ken G Sep 13 1997 12:47PM EST
Reply #848 of 848
To All,
I have received the type-written letter that was promised and
quoted in the last letter that I posted on Aug 31 (see post
#841). I again reiterate that I am not the author of the quoted
letter, nor do I know the identity of the writer. Even if I had
an idea who it is, without specific permission to the contrary, I
would have to respect the author's absolute right to privacy. I
will post that letter in the interest of discussion or comments.
I do not intend to imply that I absolutely agree with, nor can I
vouch for the accuracy of its contents.
Start of type written letter:
If you don't mind some idle rambling on my part, consider this.
Reference [recent and enclosed copies of] articles in the Wall
Street Journal, nobody seems to understand the strategy behind
Gates' $250 million involvement with Apple Computer, his purchase
of what Wall Street characterizes as the "lame" Web TV internet
access for $425 million, and a billion dollar investment in an
in-house TV "blender" product. [statements quoted by The Wall
Street Journal as made and written by George Gilder, editor of
the Gilder Technology Report].
If the past is any indication, Gates is not the man who wishes to
compete, but to dominate...immediately. There is no indication
of this man having a desire to be a "turn-around artist" which
would require a long term hands-on commitment. Besides, the
nature of the telecommunication and information systems
industries is anything but long-term. What's new today, may very
well be old and gray in six months...unless you have a clearly
superior package of patents and copyrights. A technology so
superior, it will likely remain unchallenged by another video
technology for decades to come. A development process so
complex, back-engineering couldn't replicate it.
Getting to Apple. In a world of VHS, BetaMax was not going to
make it. In a world where 95% of the world's operation systems
are Microsoft and where Window's software dominates, Apple/Mac is
not going to make it. Were Apple to move itself away from its
Mac software base and convert over to Microsoft Windows, it would
still, at best, be competing in the same software environment and
against those who are already structured and entrenched in their
95% control of the market. Note the comments in [a recent
article titled 'The World is Still a Pretty Scary Place for Apple', in the Wall Street Journal written by Lee Gomes and Jim Carlton]. "With all the key features of Apple's easy-to-use operating system now a routine part of Windows software, how will Apple Differentiate itself technically from its competitors?"
So, what if:
What if it is true that Copytele has been to Microsoft
headquarters, for presentations of its technology, on several
occasions over the past years?
What if it is true that Gates & Company paid a visit to Copytele
in the Spring of 1996 and concluded that Copytele had the best
flat panel screen in the world today?
What if it is Microsoft that is one of Copytele's two strong
Corporate relationships within the United States?
What if a Copytele/Microsoft relationship were to license
Copytele's flat panel technology exclusively to Apple Computer
for the production line of Apple desktops and laptops? All other
end-user of Dell, IBM, Compaq, etc. would have access to
Copytele's flat panel technology through the purchase at retail,
or through a rental arrangement, of "...an integrated monolithic
plug-in flat panel ready to operate.
Apple would not necessarily have exclusive use, just exclusive
integrated production rights. Everybody would want this screen.
Everybody would want this screen already built into the retail
unit. The end-user would not want to buy a new IBM or Compaq,
bring it home, throw away the monitor, and then go out to buy the
state of the art screen at retail. They wouldn't want to, but
they could. Doesn't sound like a monopoly.
Remember Denis' AGM comment. "...the computer age is primarily
controlled by two companies. One is the software company
Microsoft. And the other is the microprocessor company Intel.
Now, what they both miss is the third biggest element. And that
is a competitive and very compact high quality screen." To refer
to Copytele as the third leg of the telecommunications core
industries may seem a bit arrogant to some. I disagree. I don't
believe that Denis has overstated his position one bit.
Maybe Microsoft is about ready to involve itself in a "very
compact high quality screen". If so, it would have to extend its
influence into the hardware side of the industry to provide
access and applications for that "...third biggest element".
Apple??? At the core of his text and speeches, Gates repeatedly
focusses in on a vehicle for all computer, telecommunication,
internet, and entertainment {TV & video game} applications. It
is his mantra. For the lack of a better description, the
information & entertainment superhighway will be narrowed to a
"single access lane". This is how Gates sees the future and he
knows he must be a part of it. He would love to be the
gatekeeper of that single lane.
Now, compare that to Krusos' comment at the AGM... "What you want
is a fully integrated process...Its size will be determined by
the applications...One display will do everything. You can have
high density TV, you can have fax, you can have computer screens
and laptops for any kind of input...for video conferencing...you
can do all of that with just one display."
What a coincidence. Two men whose vision and focus appears
identical. Two men who may have met. Or, more than "just met"?
Why a $250,000,000 infusion to Apple Computer? Why $425 million
for internet access through the purchase of Web TV? Why a billion
dollar investment in an in-house TV "blender" product? Maybe
Copytele is an important factor in the equation.
From the [recent Wall Street Journal] article by George Gilder,
editor of the Guilder Technology Report. "Just imagine you are
Bill Gates...Your products utterly dominate desktop computers.
...Before the [internet] movement engulfs you, you are trying to
incorporate the Internet into your desktop operating systems.
Doubtful of your ability to sustain the growth of Microsoft at
its current pace in the computer business alone, you are
investing several billion dollars into a campaign to convert the
TV into a new microsoft platform." Now, lets do the comparison
again, From the Copytele 1996 Annual Report, Krusos' Letter to
Shareholders, page 2. "The Company [Copytele] is continuing to
develop software and hardware configuration to optimize the
performance of the display and believes... the technology could
be of universal use in such products as computers, digital
television, video conferencing, multimedia devices, personal
telecommunications and network computers[NC], and for accessing
on-line multimedia information services and the Internet.
I'm going to repeat myself for emphasis.
Of Gates: "Before the Internet movement engulfs you, you are
trying to incorporate the Internet into your desktop operating
system...you are investing several billion dollars into a
campaign to convert the TV into a microsoft platform."
Krosos: "...the technology could be of universal use in such
products as computers, ...and for accessing on-line multimedia
information services and the Internet.
My goodness. If these two men have not yet met, they ought to!
Well, lets see. "...incorporate the Internet into your desktop
operating systems,...convert the TV into a new Microsoft
platform." My TV [hardware] platform is a 200 lb. x 25" deep
cathode ray tube console. My desktop takes up most of the room
on my office desk. Both are dinosaurs. Neither Gates nor Krusos
tolerate dinosaurs. It will not be 200 lbs., but 2 lbs. It will
not be a 25" deep CRT, but a .25" deep FPD. That's digital TV,
desktop PC, Internet, etc.
By the way. Anyone remember that in the early days of Magicom
2000, the initial units were anticipated to have on-line
capability. Why was it dropped? More important to have it in
Copytele's second generation panel? More important to have it
first in the computer applications than in Magicom? Some yet
undisclosed relationship to Copytele wants it first? Who knows?
But the plot thickens.
A prediction for the near future! Over a relatively short period
of time, I can see warehouses of use computer equipment filling
up with today's box monitors. No one will want them. Everyone
will want the "new technology". Even for an industry this size,
the changeover could be instantaneous. Remember the old rotary-
dial telephone. Within a year after the development and
marketing of "touch tone", you couldn't find a rotary phone.
Rotary production at AT&T stopped immediately. Its backlogged
inventory was never shipped. Nobody wanted them. Another
example. Lincoln and Cadillac are fairly evenly matched products
in the world today. What either one has, the other has, or can
easily have. All in the industry have access to the same basic
technology pool. So, their competition is on the level of
pricing and customer service. But, what if only Lincoln had
proprietary control over the systems for power breaks, power
steering, and the power windows? Anybody want to buy a Cadillac,
cheap?
There just seems no way around it. Copytele's three flat panel
technologies are the proverbial magic bullets. Whoever controls
the Copytele license for its product, has absolute technological
dominance of that product, and its market worldwide. My opinion.
End of type written Letter.
We may be seeing some of the results of Gates desire to dominate
the hardware industry by his initiation, through Apple, to refuse
to allow clones of his computers. Witness the hammering of
Motorola stock, the provider of the processor of Apple clones.
What Gates wants to exist, will. That which he doesn't want to
exist, won't.
Good investing, Ken |
