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 : Drexler Technology Corp. (DRXR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Leslie1y2o who wrote (14)	5/11/1998 10:15:00 PM
From: Earl Mincer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59

Hi folks. I just saw the Press Release re: Microsoft, Drexler, and Ioptics. A few FYI's for you all: Some quick background: I'm an Electrical Engineer and registered Patent Agent, so I am more than qualified to comment on patent issues. I am NOT, however, suggesting that I'm an expert on this particular case as I have only looked at the Drexler and Ioptics patents very briefly. However, having done so, I have a few observations that may be of interest. Draw your conclusions. First, Drexler's patent is very broad and focuses on aligning the media for reading. Ioptics, who is doing the cards for Microsoft, does mention alignment in their technology briefing on their web site. There is no detail available on their method of alignment, so we can not discern whether it is the same as Drexler's and therefore infringes on their patents. I personally believe there is a moderately high chance that they are using the same method, but I can NOT confirm this. Obviously, Drexler thinks they are the same. Second, in at least one article, Ioptics (whose real name listed in the patents is Information Optics Corporation, by the way) tries to imply that they have patents too that might muddy the waters. Number one, their patents do not appear to cross into the alignment territory of Drexler. Number two, even if they did, a patent is NOT a right to go out and build and sell your invention, it is merely a right to exclude others. Therefore, if they were holding patents that were a refinement on the Drexler technology, they would still need a license. And last, it seems odd to me that Drexler is going after Microsoft when it appears that Ioptics is the alleged infringer. I can not explain this. That said, I personally believe the P/E is too high for me to be interested in buying. But I can say that their patents look pretty broad and that Ioptics does not appear to hold anything over on them. For what it's worth, hope this helps.