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 : YURI ( YURI SYSTEM ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Phoenix who wrote (711)	3/2/1998 9:02:00 PM
From: Keith A Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1181

Gary, Correct me if I am wrong here, however, I do believe I have spotted a potential flaw in your thinking regarding SplitRock. You stated: I don't find recalculating the numbers sans SplitRock to be "arbitrary". I fact, I find this to be quite specific. This is a revenue stream that will have to be replaced - threefold in order to maintain market share. End of story. You can't argue this. This argument completely disregards any growth which SplitRock may have. I don't know the company that well, however, I presume they are growing at more than 30% per annum. Another statement you made has me really wondering what it is that you do know: Anything can be patented. This is flatly untrue. Not everything can be patented, and Yurie's issued patent, (we don't know about any filings which may still be in prosecution at the USPTO) for AQueMan could potentially be interpreted quite broadly. (I had one of our patent attorneys read the claims, and he felt there was potentially broad coverage.) A sufficiently broad patent would potentially provide Yurie with a nice revenue stream from licenses. Just one other question for you: Are you able to walk OK? Seems like having shot yourself in both feet after the above comments, you might consider taking up roller-blading :) Keep the arguments coming - we need the lighthearted moments on the thread. Have a nice day, Keith

To: The Phoenix who wrote (711)	3/2/1998 11:07:00 PM
From: riposte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1181

Gary - Re: Your Post 2 Me... Gary - <<<Interesting comment, however I don't find recalculating the numbers sans SplitRock to be "arbitrary". I fact, I find this to be quite specific. This is a revenue stream that will have to be replaced - threefold in order to maintain market share. End of story. You can't argue this. >>> Dude - "arbitrary" is not the opposite of "specific"! I mean that you made an arbitrary decision to treat the eventual end in demand from Splitrock to be the kind of thing which only happens to Yurie. Surely, contracts end for other manufacturers, right? So, by way of comparison, that same approach (If we remove the business from Cisco's contract with xxx from Cisco's numbers, Cisco will have to grow _y_ times, instead of only _z_ times!) should be taken with every other vendor, right? Why make it a specific "Yurie problem"? <<<To be honest <chuckling> NO! It doesn't seem even remotely possible. First SplitRock may not have even decided on ATM at all had it not been for Kwok. But if they had, why would they have partnered with a start-up? Why would they bet their entire business on an unproven company? Not only do I believe the deal was ....>>> Did I call this, or WHAT?!? Change-up pitch! 1) How do you know Split Rock might not have decided on ATM? Many carriers are using ATM for their backbones. Why does this seem like such an extreme decision by Splitrock management? 2) "Unproven"? Why do you say that? Yurie has had lots of sales into the U.S. Government space, with great success. Surely, the performance of their products was proven there, no? How about this, taken from Yurie's Web site: " Independent testing by the Naval Research Laboratories has confirmed AQueMan's effectiveness under extreme traffic loading. In actual Department of Defense (DoD) deployments, Yurie's LDR ATM access products featuring AQueMan have effectively managed traffic flow to and from DoD satellite links, even when the sum of the inputs was hundreds of times greater than the low-speed satellite circuit. Would they have been able to sell so much product if it wasn't working? Even today, their product is being resold by Bay, Lucent, and Ericsson. Why would any of them sign up with Yurie, if Yurie wasn't able to offer one or more specific advantages? 3) You make some interesting comments here...that you "believe the deal was based on assurances from Kwok", and that you "would lay odds that the product was purchased without so much as a single benchmark". What gives you these impressions? Do you have any specific evidence? In the end, does it really matter? Does every company buying a Cicso product bother to benchmark, or do you think, as I do, that they just cut a purchase order, because, after all, "It's Cisco! It must be okay!" Would Splitrock really bet the farm on unproven, unbenchmarked technology? Considering the money involved, that seems like too much of a leap of faith, don't you think? Given the above-mentioned testing by the Naval Research Laboratories, do you still think it's not ready for prime time? 4)Regarding the AQueMan situation...wow! Really hit a nerve here, it seems! You are correct, in that nearly anything can be patented; obtaining a patent doesn't mean it's GOOD, it just means it's unique. I am uncertain about your statement "A-Que-Man although a patent, is non-standard and will likely never be offered as a service". I would venture to say that, by reason of its patent, it is "non-standard". My understanding of it is that it manages the queue in each switch, not across the network. In other words, every switch on the network needn't have AQueMan to be able to use it, or take advantage of it. Once again, I will refer you to the Naval Research Laboratories, and the OEM agreements which Yurie has signed. In any event I find this kind of discussion far more interesting than T/A talk of Dojis, and inverted Englebert Humperdink formations, and so on. SteveG: what do you think of this? Steve