OBJECTIVE
ANALYSIS ALERT!
April 14, 2008 SEAGATE FIRES FIRST VOLLEY AT SSD
MAKER STEC
|
Following through on the
company president's promise to Fortune Magazine on March 17, Seagate Technology
today filed a patent infringement lawsuit against STEC on the manufacture of
solid-state drives (SSDs). Seagate alleges infraction against four Seagate
patents.
Some History
Although most HDD makers are viewed as companies with no SSD
technology, they really do own intellectual property that overlaps the SSD
business, as the Seagate patents show. Both Western Digital and Seagate
partnered with SanDisk in the 1980s as SanDisk worked to establish today's flash
card market. In doing so, these HDD makers gained access to key flash SSD
intellectual property, some of which is being used in today's complaint.
Implications for SSD Makers
Although we are not in a
position to comment on the validity of Seagate's claim, we have been watching
the technology business long enough to understand the way the patent game is
often played. It is rare and very costly for such cases to be taken all the way
to trial; a settlement is usually reached beforehand. As a general rule the two
companies will square off by comparing the sheer volume of patents each
possesses, with the owner of the larger portfolio naming the terms. In this
case we compare Seagate, with a portfolio of some 3,366 patents against STEC,
whose patent portfolio appears to comprise roughly about a dozen patents, and we
see a phenomenal disparity. In light of this Seagate will probably either ask
for royalties and perhaps for a cross-license as well.
This last might be tough for STEC to accept because that would give
Seagate access to STEC's crown jewels. STEC, like most other high-end SSD
makers, profits from their know-how in a market with very low barriers to entry.
STEC has every reason to wish to jealously guard their proprietary technology.
About those low barriers: There are more than 40 SSD makers today,
with less than 20% of these companies manufacturing a differentiated, or
high-end product. The large majority of SSD makers expect to participate in the
market simply by purchasing a controller from one company (often Phison or
Silicon Motion), NAND chips from another (Samsung, Toshiba, Hynix, Intel,
Micron) and slapping them together with a few other low-cost components into an
SSD.
Now STEC is only a $189 million firm, and the royalties Seagate can
collect from them will be limited. What does this mean to titans like Samsung
($103B revenues, 25,300 patents), Toshiba ($70B revenues, 27,400 patents), or
Intel ($38B revenue, 15,200 patents), all of whom have shown off SSDs of their
own?
As the numbers above illustrate, all of these larger companies
understand the US patent system and have spent the past several years growing
their patent portfolios. They will be in a stronger negotiating position
against Seagate, and may fight back more aggressively than will STEC. In
addition, these companies have the financial wherewithal to underwrite a costly
lawsuit.
What is likely, though, is that STEC will be the proving ground for
Seagate's patents, with other companies choosing to settle or fight based upon
how the STEC/Seagate battle shapes up. We suspect that Seagate is already
holding negotiations with all major SSD makers, and will be using this suit as a
way to prove they are willing to play tough.
Implications for SSD Purchasers
Should OEMs who planned to purchase SSDs be concerned about this
move?
Not really. In such dealings the plaintiff (Seagate in this
case) usually will try to collect somewhat equivalent royalties from all
players. This keeps the playing field relatively level: the royalties that STEC
might end up paying are likely to be similar to those paid by other firms except
in cases where appreciable cross-licensing can be used to negotiate lower
royalties.
Even so, royalties are rarely high enough that they make a
significant difference to the purchase price. This means that one firm's
offerings are not likely to suffer a competitive disadvantage to their
competition because both are paying about the same rate. In a way a royalty
payment is like a sales tax or a VAT - if Seagate prevails then SSDs will all
become slightly more costly as the price of the royalty payment is passed on to
the buyer.. Implications for Seagate If Seagate profits from this move the
money should all fall directly to the bottom line. Royalty payments can be a
boon for a company, as SanDisk's president sometimes observes: SanDisk's royalty
income is more than enough to pay for the company's R&D expenses, and R&D
tends to spawn more patents. Seagate does not currently break out royalties
in their financials. We have not yet scrutinized their SEC filings to see if
royalties are reported there.
There is the possibility that this case will come to trial, and if
it does then legal fees will be a drain on both companies. Should Seagate
prevail, then their royalty income will be trimmed by their legal payments. As
we mentioned before, this is a relatively rare occurrence, and we would expect
to see a settlement before this case goes to trial.
Jim Handy
+1 (408) 356-2549
Objective Analysis
PO Box 440
Los Gatos, CA 95031-0440
USA
www.Objective-Analysis.com
| |
Objective Analysis is a hand-picked team of highly-seasoned
semiconductor industry analysts each committed to providing clients with the
most unbiased evaluation possible of industry status, events, and outlook for
the future. Our analysts provide our clients scenarios of likely outcomes,
suggesting strategies based on an in-depth understanding of the issues,
competitive landscape, and prime motivators of market success or failure. We
pride ourselves in being first seers: industry observers who pick up on
important trends before they fully materialize, helping clients take the lead in
important emerging markets.
|
