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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (27783)	3/29/2005 2:56:17 PM
From: Pam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

Hi Art, Licensing- If i remember the Q&A session from Sandisk Analyst Day, Eli said something regarding they are willing to discuss licensing right now but once they prevail in court, they may not be willing to negotiate with them. But then what you are saying also makes sense. TSEM- I do not believe, SNDK currently has anyone else for the controllers. Eli was asked about this and he said as long as they provide good service, they will have Sandisk's business. SNDK was one of their top customer last year. UMC shares- part of them were sold by Sandisk and a profit was realized few quarters ago. -Pam

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (27783)	3/29/2005 4:17:11 PM
From: clix	Respond to of 60323

AB, Sandisk states in its latest 10-K that its controller wafers are supplied by both Tower and UMC. Regarding current Sandisk investments in TSEM and UMC, the 10-K says: Liquid Assets. At January 2, 2005 ... As of that date, the cost basis of our investment in 22.2 million UMC shares was $13.4 million and its market value was $14.2 million. As of January 2, 2005, we held 9.1 million Tower shares whose book value and market value was $20.5 million. As of that date, we also held a warrant to purchase approximately 360,000 Tower shares and we estimated the market value of that warrant to be less than $0.1 million. We have agreed not to dispose of 6.3 million of our 9.0 million Tower shares until 2006.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (27783)	3/29/2005 4:50:25 PM
From: clix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Whether a company can selectively license its IP, or even whether it can refuse to license it altogether, is another area of law that is less than black and white. I looked at this recently in the context of Sandisk and Lexar, and was rather disgusted by the ambiguities that exist. Here is a sample: As the Supreme Court held in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., an owner of intellectual property "necessarily has the power of granting [a license] to some and withholding it from others.39" Indeed, if selective refusals to license were unlawful, exclusive licenses designed to maximize the licensor's profits - the grant of a license to only a single licensee to obtain "an anti-competitive purpose" - would be unlawful. But that position has been rejected in the caselaw, including one case rejecting a challenge by the federal enforcement authorities.40 Courts seem to be trying to balance the rights to IP with anti-competitive behavior. At first glance, it would seem that there should be no problem here: IP is in fact intended to reward research and development by keeping competitors at bay for a while. But not all courts see it this way, evidently, FTC chairman Pitofsky has written a lot against this pure posture. Bottom line, I don't think you can be sure of anything until after a specific case has been litigated and appealed as much as it can be appealed. If you have children, make sure they go to law school.