Keith,
Thanks for the comments. Let's stick to the issues here...
Gary, Correct me if I am wrong here, however, I do believe I have spotted a potential flaw in your thinking regarding SplitRock. You stated: I don't find recalculating the numbers sans SplitRock to be "arbitrary". I fact, I find this to be quite specific. This is a revenue stream that will have to be replaced - threefold in order to maintain market share. End of story. You can't argue this.
This argument completely disregards any growth which SplitRock may have. I don't know the company that well, however, I presume they are growing at more than 30% per annum.
True... SplitRock may indeed add some additional product however a growth rate of 30% (your numbers) for 1, perhaps 2 years?... will not be enough to maintain leadership in this market. Keith, I can't imagine that you really believe that YURI can maintain market leadership without adding new customers. Is that what you're eluding to? Although I may have overstated the SplitRock revenue issue a bit, the issue remains...and it is significant.
Another statement you made has me really wondering what it is that you do know: Anything can be patented. This is flatly untrue. Not everything can be patented,
I had no idea that you take what I say so literally, however I think you know what I mean... New technology with the slightest spin can be patented. This is not to say what YURI has is insignificant. My comment is directed at the fact that you and others point to this patent as being salient relative to product performance. It may or may not be. It hasn't been proven. That's the point. This patent does not mean that YURI's products are better or worse. There has been no product testing or benchmarking the ATM CPE space up to now... at least none that I'm aware of.
and Yurie's issued patent, (we don't know about any filings which may still be in prosecution at the USPTO) for AQueMan could potentially be interpreted quite broadly. (I had one of our patent attorneys read the claims, and he felt there was potentially broad coverage.) A sufficiently broad patent would potentially provide Yurie with a nice revenue stream from licenses.
Well, I'll resist the temptation to take personal shots here. However, I don't think it is _I_ that have limited knowledge here. I have been involved in a number of standards setting organizations and I can tell you that no company will back a technology for ratification if it is owned by a company that wishes to charge royalties. If YURI wishes to make Sub-T1 a reality then they will be much better off making this technology available to all vendors at no charge. Then they can claim to be the creators and with some work develop differentiated features on top of the fundamental technology. There are VERY FEW instances of broadly adopted standard technologies that require royality payments. There are a few...but these are typically developed by large market leading companies....not by start-ups.
BTW: I'm walking just fine.... ;) Thanks for the concern.
Gary |
