Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (13391)	12/28/1999 9:47:00 AM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Thanks, unclewest, for that impressive list of patents. If the competition is truly six years away, and with them trying to figure out a way around all of these patents, perhaps cree really does have a corner on this particular market. I noticed on one of the sites that NASA is one of the sponsors of the SiC technology, for use in high temperature/high radiation environments. I also know that NASA and DoD don't like being hostage to any one manufacturer, they like to compete their contracts. I wonder how that will play out, if NASA and DoD decide to let out big SiC contracts?

To: unclewest who wrote (13391)	12/30/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: FLSTF97	Respond to of 54805

Unclewest...thanks for posting the patent list. I agree with those who have said the patents about how to build the devices may ultimately be circumvented (let's discount the costs.) But... look at the patents on the devices themselves. These are tantamount to the early patents on the transistors in Germanium or Si, or the IC, or IRF's fundamental patent on certain Si power transistors. The difference here is that SiC material enables a whole different range of capabilities: higher frequencies, power, and temperatures. That means that devices can be built to address previously unmet demands. I don't disagree that the wafers may be a gorilla game, but I see the devices as the gorilla game. If Cree's device patents are as fundamental as I think, then why are they not in at least an Intel position? The architecture here being the physical structure of the solid state devices themselves in combination with the material. Fatboy Cree may be ahead in producing wafers and perhaps that is a It may be hard to determine if a competitor has violated a process patent, but it would be obvious if they are violating a device patent. Fatboy