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 : Presstek -- Stock of the Decade?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SG who wrote (9928)	9/4/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Brent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

Scott, Whoa! Slow down. That post wasn't an attack on you Scott, you just happen to be the last poster when I posed the question. I was looking for a yes/no answer from anyone who knows if Presstek has increased their 'expected' revenue from H'berg. But as long as you said <I don't see this Q as an ugly potential at all.> We might as well discuss it. If $26 million of H'berg's expected $29 million in revenues has already been received and the non-H'berg revenue continues on its growth rate ($10 million in Q1, $11 million in Q2, so $12 million in Q3), you won't consider that a bad Q? There is serious potential here for Presstek to post a loss in Q3. You saw what lower margins did to earnings (.10 to .02). Imagine what $5 - $10 million less in revenue would do to the earnings. Regardless of how well you know Presstek, its products, and its patents, a loss will knock PRST into the low single digits. Heck, it could hit Paul's target of $2. Brent

To: SG who wrote (9928)	9/4/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

<<Would Heidelberg risk an injunction against the use of the "DI" technology on their SM-74 DI? Could or would PRST do such a thing? Cooler heads will prevail in a royalty agreement.>> As always, Scott, this is a pipe dream that has no basis. There is no agreement that gives PRST the exclusive right to DI technology on Heidelberg presses. Neil had earlier made that same statement, and said that this information was in an SEC filing. When challenged, he could not produce any such evidence. You cannot also. If PRST had such an agreement, we would have known about it long ago. And as far as patents are concerned, Creo also has an impressive array of DI patents, and is well protected. The Platesetter and Trendsetter use this technology (and sell well), and if they had infringed on PRST patents, PRST already had ample time to object.