Would be interested in opinions; If Friday comes and goes without any announcements, is that a negative for TSRA OR, more importantly, do you think the market would perceive it as a negative? I realize it will not impact guidance or earnings considering TSRA's conservative approach to guidance, but what will the market think? And thanks, guys, for the kind thoughts....I'll continue monitoring here - either to beat myself up for exiting or to look for a re-entry point... LOL
I believe they'll issue some sort of PR indicating that the presidential review period has come and gone, but don't think it would necessarily be tomorrow. Could be early next week. But even lacking this PR, this is a classic case of no news is good news.
Guys, I'm not here to insult anyone or make enemies. I'm just trying to understand what these next "food" patents are as you describe in your story, because to me this patent lawsuit victory to me is huge... but the patents are about to expire, yes, they will get credit for what they have shipped in the past, etc, but how much of this has already been discounted in the share price, etc, regarding patents that are about to expire and thus the royalty stream along with it.
You're not going to get much help if you insult the people answering your questions. But I'm going to address you because you evidently need your hand held through this.
I am one of the 'ignorant jerks' you refer to. I have listened to every ER telecon as a public company, been invested for the last 5 years, contributed regularly to this board, I have been right, I've been wrong, and at times, yes, even ignorant on legal matters.
Here's the deal Einstein. I just sued and won my patent infringement case against you. You are cut off from drinking water or any products made from drinking water until my patent on this item runs out next year. You can choose to live without drinking water until the patent runs out, or you can negotiate a deal with me to have your drinking water and keep you alive. Which do you choose?
If you choose to negotiate, I'm going to need back payments for your previous consumption, which you consumed without license. Also, the license term is for 8 years. As part of the agreement you will pay me royalties for 7 years beyond the patent expiration, but I will give you access to my full patent portfolio, which includes other patents we will get to in a moment - but you will have to pay royalties on those too. I understand you're pissed because the water patent expires next year, but when you screw with me for years and cost me millions in legal fees, I don't have any sympathy for you any more. So you can pay me for 8 years, and add in some back payments, or you can be cut off from drinking water for the next year. If after that year you are still alive, you may consume them for free.
Now, lets assume you feel you can survive without drinking water for a year. I now have a new patent on Food. If you would like to consume food from here on out, you will have to license if from me. But as part of this license agreement, I will not give you license to consume food unless you also license your drinking water from me and provide me with back payments for the water you consumed illegally and pay royalties in the future. Again, 8 years.
Are you starting to get the picture? The MOT license was intended to drive home the point. They prefer to pay than go out of business. Freescale and Spansion have financial issues? Ok so what happens now when they can't sell their product for a year? Thats not going to help matters, is it. It doesn't matter if QCOM is fabless or not, they either take a license to make their own product or they pay royalties for AMKR to make it. Win-Win. Patents do not expire in October, they start expiring in 2010. So go tell your shareholders that you're going to stop selling your products until 2010, out of spite, because you don't want to pay the license fee, and see how that goes over.
Now instead of calling me names and being an ass, perhaps you can take some logic from the above example and start to understand the deal here, which has been covered on this board ad-nauseam. And if thats not good enough, perhaps you can visit the companies web site, review their patent portfolio, or read one of the many many many analyst reports regarding the impact of this decision. Or, you can just call everybody names and piss everybody off.
No one will be answering you with regards to this matter. You don't know anything about Tessera. All you know is the fact that FSL (which has used financial instruments (toggles)in their structure most likely leading it to possible bankruptcy in perhaps a few years if they fail to deliver)and SPSNQ.PK (trading already on pink sheets) have problems. No one cares much about them. Both of them, as we speak, can not really even afford a good team of lawyers to defend them. Both of them should be running a good, clean business meaning they should both licence the technology from TSRA and some others for the good of their future existence. QCOM in fact should do the same as AMKR has it's own fin'l problems and might not be around in a few years as well.
Tessera at the same time is much more than wafer packaging technology co. You do the research and stop calling anybody on this board an ignorant, because the one who really is, is you, dude.
Look, I have the full list of Freescale and Spansion parts being affected. It says these parts cannot be bought after July 17th until I believe October, when the patent expires. So while this stock doubled over this ruling, because this is a huge win for Tessera, after October, it will be business as usual and nobody will need to pay a dime to Tessera for the BGA packaging. Nobody could tell of any other license agreements that will extend beyond a year from now that basically affects half of the top tier semiconductor companies out there in terms of BGA or any other type of wafer packaging (other than saying TSRA is a technology licensing company). I guess I answered my own question with the wonderful help of the board.
If someone said, No, there is another patent that affects this same type of packagaing that extends 5-10 years from now, or no, this is it, after 1 year, it's over, that would have answered my question.
Dude. That's unbelievable. You must be the first person to raise that important question about the patent expiration. Oh, no, I forbid you to listen to anybody. OMG, not to those "two ignorant jerks" in particular. You have to call Moriah Shilton @ Tessera first thing Monday morning and find out what's going on. Please, let us all know about the results. I hope it's not too late.
I don't think either of you know what you're talking about. QCOM is FABLESS, of course they are going to go through someone like AMKR if they want to continue production. Spansion and Freescale have their own fabs, so they are not going to go through AMKR.
I said FREESCALE, not MOT. The bottom line is these patents expire in the next year, and neither of you have any clue as to what "next gen" BGA packaging the company is working on that is going to continue revenue streams in the future that would affect Freescale, Spansion, ST and the rest. This would be HUGE if these patents were good for the next 10 years or so, but instead, they're about to expire. I ask simple questions and I get nothing but attitude from two ignorant jerks. Freescale and Spansion are having serious financial issues, by the way.
I think the fundamental lack of understanding they refer to is that you cant read or do your own dd.
QCOM and their shareholders will be perfectly happy not shipping their parts for a year. Nice business plan.
get real. you're just a waste of space here until you do some homework.
MOT, if you are referring to Freescale, did NOT sign a licence agreement yet. I'm not sure where this "fundamental lack of understanding" is. The stock doubled in a short amount of time over winning lawsuits on patents that are about to expire. And what is this "next gen" technology, be it BGA, or what ever? And yes, this ITC restriction that prevents QCOM, etc, from shipping parts is only in effect for one year until the patents that are restricting them expire.