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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jim kelley who wrote (41379)	12/27/1998 10:44:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Oddly, there is no mention of CPQ patents in either section. So apparently CPQ do not share your view of the value of its current patent portfolio. I'm not sure why you think that acquisition of more than 70% of the total patents in clustering and storage management would have somehow slipped by either CPQ management or the industry at large. IBM has the next largest portfolio with about 15%, ALL OTHER CURRENT patents amount to about 10%. The key patents used by MSFT in wolfpack, by Oracle in Parallel Server, and even some of SGI's workstation clustering is covered by this portfolio. This has been a topic of discussion at a variety of technical and analyst forums since the Tandem acquisition was announced. A while back, I was on a panel for a parallel computing conference. Intel's Justin Rattner was also on the program. Before the panel, we were talking about this issue - Rattner said that CPQ has developed a 'near-monopoly' on cluster technology, and that anyone who wanted to do anything in that area pretty much would be forced to get cross-licensing from CPQ. Always amusing to hear someone from Intel talk about monopolies... I have no idea what you are talking about with this 10-Q stuff. I'm talking about real leverage in the technical arena.