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 : IDTI - an IC Play on Growth Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charlie Tuna who wrote (4389)	10/22/1997 9:54:00 PM
From: Charlie Tuna	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11555

Excerpt from Intels Mar 97 10K A number of competitors have developed and begun marketing products that are software compatible with some of the Company's key products. In particular,companies have announced plans to ship products in 1997 intended to compete with the Pentium and Pentium Pro microprocessor families. ------------>IDT is not licensed to use Intel patents ..Right? Many of Intel's competitors are licensed to use Intel patents. Furthermore, based on the current case law, Intel's competitors can design microprocessors that are compatible with Intel microprocessors and avoid Intel patent rights through the use of foundry services that have licenses with Intel. Competitors' products may add features, increase performance or sell at lower prices. ------------>Is this IDT or is it non-x86 compatable architectures The Company also faces significant competition from companies that offer rival microprocessor architectures. The Company cannot predict whether such rival architectures will establish or increase market acceptance or provide increased competition to the Company's products. Future distortion of price maturity curves could occur as software compatible products enter the market in significant volume or alternative architectures gain market acceptance. ------------> Intel's strategy has been, and continues to be, to introduce ever higher performance microprocessors. To implement this strategy, the Company plans to cultivate new businesses and continue to work with the software industry to develop compelling applications that can take advantage of this higher performance, thus driving demand toward the newer products. Intel also is committed to the protection of its intellectual property rights against illegal use. There can be no assurance, however, that competitors will not introduce new products (either software compatible or of rival architectural designs) or reduce prices on existing products. Such developments could have an adverse effect on Intel's revenues and margins. Charlie

To: Charlie Tuna who wrote (4389)	10/22/1997 10:32:00 PM
From: johnny boy	Respond to of 11555

Charlie, Johnny Boy is hanging in there, waiting. The good news is that I'll reach the 18 month point soon and be eligible for the lower cap gains! One plus for waiting. Process technology and fab space is excellent. Product mix looks good. I always ask myself how their network oriented (like ATM) products are doing; don't hear so many customer annoucements on these lately??????? I'd like to know more about what's going on here? RISC seems to be moving along ok and a solid contributor but not the $.25B blockbuster per year we'd all like to see?? Not sure but hope for the best. SRAM? I still think by late 1998 a big uptick might occur in world demand for these real fast zero wait state guys in large part stemming from the great leaps forward .25 and .18 based processor/DSP demand will create??? Clear logic sure sounds good. It would really sound neat if it could be called wholly owned subsidiary, or is IDT the overwhelming majority holder? We'll have to see how much of the programmable logic spectrum their tools cover??? This may keep us in a state of anticipation if all this pans out. Potential "killer" breakthrough? Maybe????????????????????????? Advanced logic? A factor but just sort of there?? Not sure. FIFO's? Data tells me they are the leader here. Solid contribu- tor to base number. Then there is the C6. I can't imagine the ASIAN folks not buying a ton of these??????? Really. I continue to look for an announce- ment because it simply seems to be at the performance and price point that cannot be resisted, provided it can be built in mass. What's all this add up to? Seems like it should work???? I'll hang for a couple more months and then reassess. The inputs on this thread help greatly. That Clear Logic intrigues me, however, I've got to admit. Would it keep me hanging even in the event that C6 never took off??? Don't know but I'm thinking.................. JB

To: Charlie Tuna who wrote (4389)	10/23/1997 12:48:00 AM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11555

I know about the Cyrix and to a lesser extent the AMD lawsuits but I don't think it's worth getting into a lond discussion at this point. I think that antitrust under the Clinton administration is much more attive than it was under Reagan or 'ol what's his name. The situation has also changed quite a bit with both Intel and Microsoft at the top of the mountain wanting to protect their perch from being toppled by a rizing tide of new developments. IDT has some agreemetns with Intel in some areas of technology but no X86 cross license. They also have a significant patent portfolio that may be leverage to secure an agreement to a cross license or partial cross license combined with royalty payments. Intel has been very litigious in the past (similar to Microsoft - did you know Bill Gates dad was a prominent Seattle Attorney who was influential in stearing Gates on orienting his business?). A large part of the tactic has been to run any challenger through our legal money laundering system (some people refer to it as the courts) forcing them into submission from the shear weight of the fight. IDT's primary defense would be that they have designed the C6 using technology developed entirely in-house and that they do not violate any Intel patents. Of course, when you get right down to it, Intel violates DECs patents which probably violates some of IBMs patents as well as some of Intel's and TI's patent's and etc. These parts use technology so complex that it takes a high level of technical expertise to understand the engineering that goes into them - an expertise that our archaic juditial system is sorely lacking (I'm glad they stopped using powdered wigs but otherwise the courts are just out of the darks ages).