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.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: limtex who wrote (13750)	8/9/2000 7:38:07 AM
From: orkrious	Respond to of 60323

limtex, I don't mean this facetiously. Clearly your post refers back to the post of Aus' you responded to. Does the post immediately prior to yours answer your question? Message 14184661

To: limtex who wrote (13750)	8/9/2000 10:01:32 AM
From: Ausdauer	Respond to of 60323

Limtex, "Are you saying that there is no IPR in the MMC that SNDK can rely on to earn royalty income or license fees? Or is it that SNDK does own the IPR in MMC but has a license with Hitachi for CF which may have included or diluted SNDK''s ability to apply royalty income to the MMC chip..." I want to be clear on this matter. I e-mailed SanDisk a few weeks ago asking why MMC was not considered to be an ATA/IDE compliant device. I assumed it has the same controller configuration as CompactFlash. My assumption was that the pin connectors (actually they are more like flat contact pads) violated the standard for flash cards as both standard PCMCIA cards and CF cards have a compatible pin connector configuration. As it turns out (from Wily's Hitachi white paper reference), MMC uses a proprietary interface which is non-ATA/IDE. Thus, it is not ATA/IDE compliant. I assume, therefore, that the '987 patent which protects CompactFlash (disk drive emulation on a removable flash card using an ATA/IDE interface) does not directly cover MMC. In other words, the proprietary feature of MMC may actually be the MMC interface which (I believe) SanDisk and Siemens co-invented. Sony has been forced to promote a non-ATA/IDE interface for Memory Stick. I believe this was needed to circumvent '987. However, Sony is now forced to solicit other OEM's to accept this non-ATA/IDE compliant interface. I see this as an uphill battle. Recall that MMC was offered as an open standard to spur second sources. I think it is clear that SanDisk would never wish to be a sole source given the astronomical demand that is coming. They would do well to open the standard and try to enforce the IP. However, I am not certain what the proprietary features of MMC are. It is possible they fall under some the art in '987, but this is just a guess. I suspect Hitachi has or will have negotiated 3 separate co-licensing agreements with SanDisk. One for core flash patents (completed in 1997), one for use of the CF assembly patents for CF cards sold in Japan/Europe, and one for the variety of MMC not covered by a license with Infineon. SAFE HARBOR DISCLAIMER: This is all supposition and IMHO. I hope this is clearer. Ausdauer

To: limtex who wrote (13750)	8/9/2000 10:20:47 AM
From: Ausdauer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Limtex, To put your mind at ease please recall annualized licensing & royalty figures... SanDisk Corporation 1995 $1,250,000 1996 $8,000,000 1997 $19,578,000 1998 $32,571,000 1999 $41,220,000 2000 $70,000,000 (projected) Now realize that the CompactFlash royalties are about to come pouring in. The volume sales that Wily found in the Hitachi white paper suggest that we are in for a windfall. I hope SanDisk is able to negotiate retroactive licensing agreements for prior card sales. The Q3 and Q4 results will hopefully hold some pleasant surprises for SNDK longs!!! Ausdauer