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 : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zen Dollar Round who wrote (18446)	9/24/1998 2:32:00 PM
From: Travis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

The figures I've seen bandied about the most are in the neighborhood of $350 million, paid in installments over 2-3 years. If that's true, Microsoft got a great deal. :) True. But I would rather have a $350 mil + Friendlier relations than $900 million and the same relationship with MS. I think aapl did will too - releasing MS Office 98 on the mac was a major part of that agreement. At its release it did wonders for confidence in apple-mostly from "non-believers." -Travis

To: Zen Dollar Round who wrote (18446)	9/24/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

If that's true, Microsoft got a great deal. :) Are you sure? Do you know what is the amount of money exchanged between two large corporations when signing a large cross-licensing patent arrangement? What is the usual percentage paid if a single patent is licensed? My figures are now somewhat out of date, but for example, most of Snow White and the Seven dwarfs had cross-patent licensing arrangments with no money involved (anybody here old enough to name the seven dwarfs?). The usual percentage paid for patent licensing is 1% of price. So $300million presumes sales of $30 billion in violating products.... So if anything $300mill sounds too high. Now, when you are trying to save your megacorporation from being broken into pieces by the DoJ, I wouldn't be surprised if M$ paid as much as $1bill in fifty easy installments.... The exception to the above rule is when patent violation infringes over a main stay product, such as M$ violation of stacker, which was completely unintentional (meaning they were unaware that the technology was patented, the copying was, of course, on purpose).

To: Zen Dollar Round who wrote (18446)	9/24/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: BillHoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

<<If that's true, Microsoft got a great deal. :)>> They might have gotten more than that. A PDA magazine speculated that S. Jobs made a deal with Gates that sold the handheld market to MSFT to spite Compaq. A part or all of the education market went with it for the undisclosed sum that could total half a billion $$. They articles stated that as the reason why Apple dropped the Newton when they did. "Apple had the best handwriting recognition technology on the planet and they dropped it" the article said. The reasoned that MSFT could not convince Compaq to drop development of a Win95 handheld in favor of Cindows CE. They enlisted Jobs to give them free reign for CE to take a bite out of Compaq. Apple's motivation was purely mercenary. -Bill_H