Amen! It seems that people don't understand that the patent system is meant to protect people who come with ideas first rather than companies who bring products to mass markets. It's amazing how people have lost sight of that. RIM infringed. They didn't do their homework or if they did, they thought they could get away with it anyway. They protect their IP. They pay when they fail to recognize other people's IP. I don't see what's so bad about this situation.
I don't have a good link to the actual details of his system as it was originally demonstrated at Comdex in 1990. Here's a bit of background info though:
Sadly, in Businessweek.
Well his widow who owns half of NTP will benefit. Considering he didn't write her out of the will, I'm going to make the educated bet that he would be made happy if she won.
Yes, he designed a system. He invented a device for delivering it. He couldn't market the thing well. NTP wasn't a nameless, faceless SCO type organization. It was an electrical engineer who tried to take technology to the marketplace. Then he had a big company run with his idea and make millions to which they did not cut him in. Unfortunately, the guy died while trying to defend his idea.
No, I think you're misinformed. He invented and tried to market something. I'm aware that he's dead but it has no relevance as it's reasonable to think that he'd want his next of kin to benefit. That it failed in the marketplace is immaterial to an intellectual property case. Perhaps the concept is "obvious" in hindsight, but neither you nor I had the forethought to patent it, did we?
It could fail in the marketplace for a number of reasons, afterall. RIM either failed to do due diligence or thought that they could get away with it anyway. They had the opportunity to settle the case long ago and failed to do so.
That's funny. I'd think that Thomas Campana and his widow might want to be paid for his work. NTP sure does have employees. But what I asked for was fairness and justice. If NTP's patent is going to be invalid, perhaps there's a slew of others that deserve the same treatment.
That's the problem with ignorance. It rears its head at the ugliest moments.
Absolutely - and some smaller guy just got squashed by RIM. They went through all of the trouble of inventing something, having it patented and then having their technology stolen by RIM with no compensation. The patent office is so spectacularly bad at maintaining a semblance of fairness and justice - it's basically just playing favorites.
Someone in Congress likes you? Congratulations, we can offer to hold up your patent or alternatively strike someone else's down. Uh oh! Made an enemy in the government? Well don't expect to get paid for your work!
When did increasing the cost of ad space count as an idea? Hey I've got a revolutionary idea - I'll sell you a car for 100x the normal price. Instead of buying the car, you'll buy each individual part. Only buy the ones you need!
I think your numbers are off. Apple returned a.38 EPS with a.12 tax benefit in Q4 2005. Dell returned.38 in Q2 2006 with effectively no tax benefit ($85 mil, but the float is like >2 bil). But let's not forget that as recently as a year ago, Apple had an EPS of.14 and the year before that, they were barely over 0 whereas Dell earned.29 and has pretty consistent earnings. Neither one seems to pay dividends.
I'll admit Apple's growth has been explosive. As a shareholder, I'd rather have Apple a year ago than Dell a year ago. But as of today, Apple's YOY% is just about the same as Dell's. Either one could always suprise everyone but I wouldn't expect too much more of that explosive growth.
Would you really take the 9.5% margin as a stockholder given that the EPS for Apple has only been at Dell's level for the last year? I mean, what do you really care about the margin percentage as a stockholder except as some sort of weak indicator of future profitability? Hell, I could run a 90% margin business but if there's not very much business, it doesn't really matter, does it?
But really all it means is the guys on the board of directors aren't getting bought out on their own terms. Hey, it's one of the risks you assume when you decided to go public. It's often welcomed by share holders but hostile towards the managing board that's about to be fired:)
I actually use that as one of my criteria. No offense to those that have the certs out there, but my hard and fast rule is that if there's a cert on the resume, I don't want to see it. I figure that when you write a resume, you are granted a page or two to really show off what you've accomplished and what you can do and if that made the list...
Consider a financial firm - they have a big cost center called "compliance". They'd never dare cut people from that particular cost center because the cost of not having compliance far outweighs the cost of having them. It's really easy to measure the cost of not having a proper compliance staff by looking at recent settlements. Unfortunately, IT doesn't have quite the same luxury of being easily measured.
I find it rare to get a significant jump in salary without leaving a company and going to another. Sure, there's often a small (10%) yearly increase, but if you want any significant improvement in terms and conditions, the best thing seems to be to shop around. It sucks from a loyalty perspective, but then again, where does their loyalty lie?
laf, that's just great - In a similar vein, in about 2000 or so, I saw someone who was looking for 7 years of Java experience. I tried to explain to them that they are pretty much looking for Gosling himself, but they were sure that they'd find him. Given a few years of looking, I'm sure they found him.:)
I think the major problems with IT staff and corporations are:
a) they often lump anyone having anything to do with computers into one blanket term "IT" b) they see this staff as a "cost center" and a drain on their profits since developers usually don't directly book profits c) they have a disincentive to engage in the type of long-term planning in which experienced developers participate
So in the end, they look for young/cheap developers and expect a lot and are often disappointed.
In addition, there's also some sort of assumption that companies that operate in different spaces should be subject to the same valuation terms. That's historically been proven to be totally inaccurate. Companies tend to be measured in relation to their peer group. For example, the energy industry tends to trade at multiples larger than the auto industry, despite being pretty strongly linked. There's more to a valuation than the P/E or even the forward P/E.
As you've pointed out, Google has clearly indicated that their desire is not limited to the Internet search space. That possibility and the market's belief that they can actually execute on those plans is going to lead to a higher valuation. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I think that's a big missing part of the valuation picure that ends up making some things seem absurd in the news media. I really value the Economist as a strong source. I subscribe to it and weigh their opinions. However, they aren't always right and they are rather conservative.
Seriously though - This situation is ridiculous. He has a PhD in computer science. Surely, he's figured out how to use the cup holder on his machine. And if not, he's a "Internet industry executive". Can't he bribe one of his tech support guys to fix it for him and keep his mouth shut about the pr0n stash that he has on there? Does he know any 12 year olds that could instruct him on the proper use of a Windows CD? Or is he just _that_ wasteful?
Oh No, I DON'T admit the intrisic value exists. YOU don't even know what that means! Capital assets are NOT the heart of value. Capital assets have a LOT of value "in a society of paper-and electronic worshippers". Except, you fail to recognize that LIABILITIES ALSO have negative value. YOU need to learn something, basically ANYTHING, about finance. Have you even taken a basic accounting class?
GM has proven, time and again, that is CANNOT get the job done. The firm loses money. That's not the kind of investment in which people are interested. Google makes money. That's the kind of investment that has value. Are you the kind of person who buys high and sells low? I'm amazed that you're able to get internet access.
You're the buffoon here if you think the set of major search engines is bigger than the set of automanfacturers. If we had this conversation in the 1960s, you could have the same argument and it would still be wrong. The auto industry has new entrants. Some survive, some are purchased and some do not survive. People are trying to duplicate the success of any successful company all the time. Sure, for Google, it's not a question of the cost of computers - it's a question of the cost of ideas and patents. You really need to learn a bit about economics. What do you do for a living? Do you even work in the field of economics and finance?
ECONOMICS HAS NO LAWS. IT ONLY HAS PRICING THEORIES. See, I can do it too! Items do not have intrinsic value. They only have percieved value. Intrinsic value cannot be stripped from them, and trust me, the value of your car is stripped the minute you own it.
GM's capital assets ARE worth more than Google's. But perhaps you're forgetting that YOU CANNOT LIQUIDATE THE CAPITAL ASSETS AND NOT PAY OFF THE LIABILITIES ON GM'S BALANCE SHEET. That's the way the law works. So Google, it turns out, is worth a lot more than GM.
Ahh paper assets as in stock. Clearly you're the one playing dumb. Stock is not a paper asset to a firm. It's a liability. You can talk all you want about intrinsic values of cars and trucks vs. advertising space, but it won't make it more right.
Slashdot Mirror
A phishing site could easily submit your supplied username/password combo to the real site to verify it if they wanted to.
Amen! It seems that people don't understand that the patent system is meant to protect people who come with ideas first rather than companies who bring products to mass markets. It's amazing how people have lost sight of that. RIM infringed. They didn't do their homework or if they did, they thought they could get away with it anyway. They protect their IP. They pay when they fail to recognize other people's IP. I don't see what's so bad about this situation.
I fail to see how it is obvious that it was NTP's strategy to drag out the court case. It seems obvious that their strategy was to license their IP.
Are you saying the NTP was wrong to defend their patent?
I don't have a good link to the actual details of his system as it was originally demonstrated at Comdex in 1990. Here's a bit of background info though: Sadly, in Businessweek.
Well his widow who owns half of NTP will benefit. Considering he didn't write her out of the will, I'm going to make the educated bet that he would be made happy if she won.
Yes, he designed a system. He invented a device for delivering it. He couldn't market the thing well. NTP wasn't a nameless, faceless SCO type organization. It was an electrical engineer who tried to take technology to the marketplace. Then he had a big company run with his idea and make millions to which they did not cut him in. Unfortunately, the guy died while trying to defend his idea.
No, I think you're misinformed. He invented and tried to market something. I'm aware that he's dead but it has no relevance as it's reasonable to think that he'd want his next of kin to benefit. That it failed in the marketplace is immaterial to an intellectual property case. Perhaps the concept is "obvious" in hindsight, but neither you nor I had the forethought to patent it, did we?
It could fail in the marketplace for a number of reasons, afterall. RIM either failed to do due diligence or thought that they could get away with it anyway. They had the opportunity to settle the case long ago and failed to do so.
That's funny. I'd think that Thomas Campana and his widow might want to be paid for his work. NTP sure does have employees. But what I asked for was fairness and justice. If NTP's patent is going to be invalid, perhaps there's a slew of others that deserve the same treatment.
That's the problem with ignorance. It rears its head at the ugliest moments.
Absolutely - and some smaller guy just got squashed by RIM. They went through all of the trouble of inventing something, having it patented and then having their technology stolen by RIM with no compensation. The patent office is so spectacularly bad at maintaining a semblance of fairness and justice - it's basically just playing favorites.
Someone in Congress likes you? Congratulations, we can offer to hold up your patent or alternatively strike someone else's down. Uh oh! Made an enemy in the government? Well don't expect to get paid for your work!
Sorry, my sarcasm didn't come through well there. Yeah I know, the sum of the parts is greater than the whole when it comes to most things.
When did increasing the cost of ad space count as an idea? Hey I've got a revolutionary idea - I'll sell you a car for 100x the normal price. Instead of buying the car, you'll buy each individual part. Only buy the ones you need!
I think your numbers are off. Apple returned a .38 EPS with a .12 tax benefit in Q4 2005. Dell returned .38 in Q2 2006 with effectively no tax benefit ($85 mil, but the float is like >2 bil). But let's not forget that as recently as a year ago, Apple had an EPS of .14 and the year before that, they were barely over 0 whereas Dell earned .29 and has pretty consistent earnings. Neither one seems to pay dividends.
I'll admit Apple's growth has been explosive. As a shareholder, I'd rather have Apple a year ago than Dell a year ago. But as of today, Apple's YOY% is just about the same as Dell's. Either one could always suprise everyone but I wouldn't expect too much more of that explosive growth.
Would you really take the 9.5% margin as a stockholder given that the EPS for Apple has only been at Dell's level for the last year? I mean, what do you really care about the margin percentage as a stockholder except as some sort of weak indicator of future profitability? Hell, I could run a 90% margin business but if there's not very much business, it doesn't really matter, does it?
But really all it means is the guys on the board of directors aren't getting bought out on their own terms. Hey, it's one of the risks you assume when you decided to go public. It's often welcomed by share holders but hostile towards the managing board that's about to be fired :)
I actually use that as one of my criteria. No offense to those that have the certs out there, but my hard and fast rule is that if there's a cert on the resume, I don't want to see it. I figure that when you write a resume, you are granted a page or two to really show off what you've accomplished and what you can do and if that made the list...
Yipes, I made a mistake. I didn't mean to put 10%, I meant to put a less than sign in there!
Consider a financial firm - they have a big cost center called "compliance". They'd never dare cut people from that particular cost center because the cost of not having compliance far outweighs the cost of having them. It's really easy to measure the cost of not having a proper compliance staff by looking at recent settlements. Unfortunately, IT doesn't have quite the same luxury of being easily measured.
I find it rare to get a significant jump in salary without leaving a company and going to another. Sure, there's often a small (10%) yearly increase, but if you want any significant improvement in terms and conditions, the best thing seems to be to shop around. It sucks from a loyalty perspective, but then again, where does their loyalty lie?
laf, that's just great - In a similar vein, in about 2000 or so, I saw someone who was looking for 7 years of Java experience. I tried to explain to them that they are pretty much looking for Gosling himself, but they were sure that they'd find him. Given a few years of looking, I'm sure they found him. :)
I think the major problems with IT staff and corporations are:
a) they often lump anyone having anything to do with computers into one blanket term "IT"
b) they see this staff as a "cost center" and a drain on their profits since developers usually don't directly book profits
c) they have a disincentive to engage in the type of long-term planning in which experienced developers participate
So in the end, they look for young/cheap developers and expect a lot and are often disappointed.
In addition, there's also some sort of assumption that companies that operate in different spaces should be subject to the same valuation terms. That's historically been proven to be totally inaccurate. Companies tend to be measured in relation to their peer group. For example, the energy industry tends to trade at multiples larger than the auto industry, despite being pretty strongly linked. There's more to a valuation than the P/E or even the forward P/E.
As you've pointed out, Google has clearly indicated that their desire is not limited to the Internet search space. That possibility and the market's belief that they can actually execute on those plans is going to lead to a higher valuation. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but I think that's a big missing part of the valuation picure that ends up making some things seem absurd in the news media. I really value the Economist as a strong source. I subscribe to it and weigh their opinions. However, they aren't always right and they are rather conservative.
Seriously though - This situation is ridiculous. He has a PhD in computer science. Surely, he's figured out how to use the cup holder on his machine. And if not, he's a "Internet industry executive". Can't he bribe one of his tech support guys to fix it for him and keep his mouth shut about the pr0n stash that he has on there? Does he know any 12 year olds that could instruct him on the proper use of a Windows CD? Or is he just _that_ wasteful?
Oh No, I DON'T admit the intrisic value exists. YOU don't even know what that means! Capital assets are NOT the heart of value. Capital assets have a LOT of value "in a society of paper-and electronic worshippers". Except, you fail to recognize that LIABILITIES ALSO have negative value. YOU need to learn something, basically ANYTHING, about finance. Have you even taken a basic accounting class?
GM has proven, time and again, that is CANNOT get the job done. The firm loses money. That's not the kind of investment in which people are interested. Google makes money. That's the kind of investment that has value. Are you the kind of person who buys high and sells low? I'm amazed that you're able to get internet access.
You're the buffoon here if you think the set of major search engines is bigger than the set of automanfacturers. If we had this conversation in the 1960s, you could have the same argument and it would still be wrong. The auto industry has new entrants. Some survive, some are purchased and some do not survive. People are trying to duplicate the success of any successful company all the time. Sure, for Google, it's not a question of the cost of computers - it's a question of the cost of ideas and patents. You really need to learn a bit about economics. What do you do for a living? Do you even work in the field of economics and finance?
ECONOMICS HAS NO LAWS. IT ONLY HAS PRICING THEORIES.
See, I can do it too! Items do not have intrinsic value. They only have percieved value. Intrinsic value cannot be stripped from them, and trust me, the value of your car is stripped the minute you own it.
GM's capital assets ARE worth more than Google's. But perhaps you're forgetting that YOU CANNOT LIQUIDATE THE CAPITAL ASSETS AND NOT PAY OFF THE LIABILITIES ON GM'S BALANCE SHEET. That's the way the law works. So Google, it turns out, is worth a lot more than GM.
Ahh paper assets as in stock. Clearly you're the one playing dumb. Stock is not a paper asset to a firm. It's a liability. You can talk all you want about intrinsic values of cars and trucks vs. advertising space, but it won't make it more right.