Seeking Alpha

Patrick Anderson

View as an RSS Feed
View Patrick Anderson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    "Apple added a little arrow below your finger" that MOVES when you slide it.

    "Apple can blatantly use Neonode's patent 100% and there is no infringement what so ever?" -- There is no infringement, so they are not "using" the patent in the legal sense.
    Jun 28 09:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 8x8 Sells Patent Family For $12M; Implies Patent Portfolio Value Of Up To $600M [View article]
    Having had time to collect some better data on the portfolio, MOST of the patent families have 1-2 patents in them. A couple of the older ones have 20+.

    However, I would caution anyone relying on per patent value as a metric, as opposed to per family value. The 'per patent' value matric may work well for extraordinarily large portfolios (like Motorola or Nortel), since the disparity between 1-2 patent families and 20+ patent families mostly averages out. But in sub-1000 patent portfolios, and certainly in sub-100 patent portfolios, a large disparity in patent family size can really throw your numbers off.

    One 20 patent family, all other things being equal, is worth less than 10 2-patent families for the simple reason that licensees expect (and courts have agreed, absent specific language to the contrary) that a license to one patent in a family licenses them all. The 10 2-patent families can be licensed 'piece-meal' (sort of like the difference between 'parting out' an old car versus selling it as is).

    Would agree with me that, no matter the metric, EGHT's current market value appears to give no credit to patents at all?

    Finally, you missed one other important patent comp: Adaptix sold it's portfolio to Acacia (ACTG) for $160 M net cash, or $4.8 M per patent. See
    Jun 28 07:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    I mentioned the zForce optical technology licensing in the article. Yes, of course it helps Neonode, but has nothing to do with Apple. First, Apple uses capacitive touch, not optical. Second, so much of the speculation on Neonde was driven by the supposed value of the swipe-to-unlock patent. I'm here to tell you that reliance is misplaced.
    Jun 28 07:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    Justine13 -

    I don't have an agenda. And you are right, patents are not that tricky. The most important question about any patent is whether the CLAIM describes something that someone is making, doing, selling etc. As I explained already, NEON's swipe-to-unlock claim fails to describe the way Apple's slide-to-unlock works. It's that simple.
    Jun 28 07:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 8x8 Sells Patent Family For $12M; Implies Patent Portfolio Value Of Up To $600M [View article]
    I agree, but I do not pretend to understand the psychology of investors reacting to the news. Perhaps if they had put the sale price in their press release, more people would have taken notice?

    Despite the news of large patent sales like Nortel, Motorola, InterDigital and (hopefully, eventually) Kodak, 8 figure patent sales are pretty rare. I will be very curious to see how trading goes afterhours and where EGHT opens in the morning.
    Jun 27 10:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 8x8 Sells Patent Family For $12M; Implies Patent Portfolio Value Of Up To $600M [View article]
    I just checked yet another (proprietary) data source that includes patent "re-assignment" data, and it confirms 40 patent families.

    It's possible that the research note you reference refers to subportfolios manually grouped by 8x8 based on similarity of coverage/application.
    Jun 27 10:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 8x8 Sells Patent Family For $12M; Implies Patent Portfolio Value Of Up To $600M [View article]
    A patent "family" refers to the different issued patents that all relate to a single patent specification. How many different inventions do you think most patent specifications contain?

    What would be unusual about 16 US patents in each family is that such a high per-family count would be in the upper tiers (easily top 5% and possibly top 1%) compared against patent family size of all patent families. By far, most patents are "singles."

    What's going on here is that 8x8's claim of being issued more than 80 US patents is likely a misstatement. More than likely, they meant 80 worldwide patents. A 2002 study by professors at the University of Munich found that the average worldwide patent family size was between 3 and 4. A colleague of mine ran some analytics on the 8x8 portfolio and counted 9 patent families. If 8x8 truly has 80 worldwide patents and 9 families, this would amount to about 7 patents per family. While high, this is more consistent for a company with a strong IP focus.
    Jun 27 10:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Too Early To Dub Neonode The 'Apple-Killer' [View article]
    Try reading the article again where I talk about what the patent CLAIMS. That is what determines whether or not Apple will need a license.
    Jun 27 07:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 8x8 Sells Patent Family For $12M; Implies Patent Portfolio Value Of Up To $600M [View article]
    I put a link to my source for the 50 families in the article, but it is an imperfect. What is your source for 5 patent families? If their claim of 80 US patents is true, they have 16 patents in each family, which would be extremely unusual.
    Jun 27 07:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dismissal In Apple-Motorola Suit Should Not Affect Nokia's Patent Monetization Strategy [View article]
    "if the numbers are true, then Nokia is one of the world's truly undervalued corporations"

    Which is another reason I think we need specific disclosure rules for IP valuation and royalty income reporting ... but that is another conversation.
    Jun 25 10:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dismissal In Apple-Motorola Suit Should Not Affect Nokia's Patent Monetization Strategy [View article]
    I'm not sure what the context is of your question. Are you asking as a matter of historical fact or asking me to make a prediction?

    As to historical fact, that has been difficult to determine, but estimates are (without accounting for the Mosaid deal) more than $600 M (source:

    I'm not aware of any reported revenues related to Mosaid licensing activity, and with Mosaid now private, it may end up being difficult to determine. As the article I've linked suggests, the $600 M figure doesn't take into account their recently-discovered vigor with respect to the patent side of the business. I hestitate to give a dollar figure, but if you figure that $600 M represents 30% of the smartphone market (Apple being the primary licensee to date), there is a potential $2 B annual opportunity for NOK just in smartphones alone. They also have technology related to wireless infrastructure, and likely have UI and other non-essential technology that would relate to other mobile devices like e-readers and tablets.
    Jun 25 04:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dismissal In Apple-Motorola Suit Should Not Affect Nokia's Patent Monetization Strategy [View article]
    NOK's patent monetization efforts are well documented, including their partnership with Mosaid and Microsoft (see, the Apple lawsuit ( which they settled last year, their expression of interest in selling patents (, and their lawsuits in May against HTC and Viewsonic.
    Jun 25 03:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • LML Payment Patent Monetization Proves IP Is More Than An Exit Strategy [View article]
    Like the other comments and the article pointed out, LML saw 30% growth in their transaction processing business last year while still wrapping up the monetization business. If they simply match that growth, they'll be looking at $21 M in revenue next year. Ideally, the company would use the cash and extra time (now that they no longer have to worry about monetization) to further grow the transaction business.
    Jun 22 11:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did InterDigital Sell A Rembrandt At Thomas Kinkade Prices, Or Was It The Other Way Around? [View article]
    "But that doesnt mean they werent valuable. I dont see why intel could give 375 million for patents that arent worth anything."

    There is more than one type of value when it comes to patents, which is why--as you also point out--discussing IDCC can get complicated.

    I suspect the patents had little LICENSING value, but that is not the same as saying the patents are worthless. A patent owner can extract value in multiple ways, but extracting value through licensing requires that the patents cover something that people are actually using (or have a strong desire to use).

    Intel is not primarily a licensing entity. To companies like Intel, patents tend to be viewed more as a pure numbers game. Some licensing discussions between large operating companies--and I WISH I were making this up--literally count the number of patents on each side, and the cash flows from the company with the smaller number to the one with the larger number. Thanks to computers, patent relevance has started to come into play, which explains why the portfolio is interesting to Intel. They can beef up their raw patent numbers in mobile technologies and potentially save more than $375 M in the long run.

    The move also keeps the patents out of the hands of, say, Nvidia.
    Jun 20 09:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Vs. Vringo: Vringo Delivers A Knockout In Round One [View article]
    A settlement and a loss are not the same thing, and I disagree that the Overture/Yahoo settlement could be characterized as a "loss" or as negative in any way to Google.

    Google traded a bunch of pieces of paper (were stock certificates still printed on paper back then?) in exchange for rights to fundamental internet advertising technology--the oxygen that allows the Google organism to survive. No one knew exactly what those pieces of paper would be worth, but as fate would have it, they were worth billions ... at the time the deal was made, no one could be sure ... but Google could be sure about the importance of the patent rights they acquired.

    In any event, that was a long time ago, when Google was in a much more vulnerable position. Take a look at Google of the last 5 years and you'll see that their preference is to take these IP issues to trial unless they can get out for a "nuisance" value settlement. The legal fees involved are but a drop in the bucket for them, but a share of advertising revenue is not something they'd part with willingly. Maybe they won't decide to press their luck against I/P, but I doubt it.

    For the record, I agree that settling makes sense for GOOG ... but I learned my less about assuming GOOG will do what makes sense for the shareholders...
    Jun 20 09:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment