To: hueyone who wrote (13539 ) 8/3/2000 9:02:28 AM From: Ausdauer Read Replies (4) | Respond to Good Morning, Huey!But you and I have never agreed on or ascertained the origins of NAND flash for SST's CompactFlash card design. but cannot prove ) that SSTI sells a controller for CF cards to an assembler (like Kingston) who packages the SSTI controller with off-the-shelf ultra-high density flash (possibly NAND) from an SSTI competitor. (Kingston could be the rough equivalent of Apacer in this instance. It not only assembles, but also private labels, markets and sells the final product at retail or as an OEM item.) If you don't accept this possibility I suggest you call or e-mail SSTI and inquire about it. I have already posted the information that I have received about SSTI CompactFlash and am not inclined to redo my research.You frequently imply that SNDK is making money from SST by virtue of SNDK's IP, but you have never been able to document this. Recently, you assumed that any NAND flash memory purchase from Toshiba for SST's ADC will benefit SNDK...Toshiba and Sandisk will each separately market and sell their share of the output of the joint venture...so your implied conclusion that SST's ADC module is some sort of "win" for SNDK is yet another stretch. "I see products like ADC and Disk-on-Chip as being the ultimate destination of excess NAND output from the FlashVision fab once all flash card demand is met." excess production (above and beyond internal needs) for final use in competitive products like embedded, high capacity flash disk sets (DOC, ADC,...). FLSH and SSTI are posturing that their embedded applications will erode the flash card market for SanDisk. Their dependence on off-the-shelf NAND is one defense mechanism that SanDisk may use to neutralize this offensive.I am quite certain you don't know how SST leverages its IP and whether or not SST is doing a good job of it. Yet you seem intent on conjuring up hypothetical deal structures and then posting conclusions generally referring to SST as short term focused. When we get some real facts regarding SST's numerous deals and business relationships, then we can draw some meaningful conclusions. I meant to imply that SNDK and SSTI utilize their IP in different ways with different end results. If I had the ability to display graphs on Silicon Investor I would post a comparison of product revenue and royalty revenue growth for both companies side-by-side to support my assumptions on the leveraging of the respective IP's. As a long-term strategy I am more optimistic about SNDK's approach than SSTI's. The way the companies leverage their respective IP's may change in the future and it is important to re-evaluate the progress each company makes at regular intervals.
