Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘boic’

Oracle surpasses profit, revenue forecasts

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , on September 17, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Article from SF Gate.

Oracle Corp. reported profit and revenue that beat analysts’ estimates as sales of database software and Sun Microsystems server computers helped it capitalize on a recovery in information-technology spending.

First-quarter earnings excluding acquisition costs and other expenses were 42 cents per share, Redwood City‘s Oracle said Thursday in a statement. That topped the 37 cent average of projections compiled by Bloomberg.

The world’s second-largest software maker is taking advantage of improvements in corporate spending by offering a wide range of software products it’s assembled through acquisitions. Oracle also gained computer hardware with its $7.3 billion purchase of Sun in January. The hiring of Mark Hurd as co-president this month may help the company manage Sun and expand into new areas of hardware, analysts said.

“Oracle is probably the best indicator in the software space of the overall spending environment in IT right now,” said Yun Kim, an analyst at Gleacher & Co. in Greenwich, Conn., who recommends buying the shares and doesn’t own any himself. Most software projects at companies require database programs, which benefits Oracle, he said.

Oracle rose 4.1 percent to 26.40 in extended trading after closing at $25.36 at 4 p.m. on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The stock has gained 3.4 percent this year.

The company reports sales that include deferred revenue from acquired companies and don’t conform to generally accepted accounting principles. On that basis, sales in the period ended Aug. 31 jumped 50 percent to $7.59 billion. Analysts on average predicted $7.32 billion.

Oracle is the largest seller of database software, second to SAP AG in business applications, and the No. 2 provider of application-connecting middleware after IBM Corp. Its goal for Sun, a money loser at the time of the acquisition, is to contribute $1.5 billion in operating income during its first year in the fold.

The company will unveil “two high-end systems that combine Sun hardware with Oracle software” at next week’s Oracle OpenWorld show in San Francisco, Hurd said in the statement.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Date Certain Sale of the Assets and Intellectual Property of Applied Spine Technologies, Inc.

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , on September 13, 2010| Leave a Comment »

SALE OF APPLIED SPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Gerbsman Partners has been retained by Applied Spine Technologies, Inc. http://www.appliedspine.com to solicit interest for the acquisition of all, or substantially all, Applied Spine Technologies’ assets.

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE:

The information in this memorandum does not constitute the whole or any part of an offer or a contract. The information contained in this memorandum relating to Applied Spine Technologies’ Assets has been supplied by Applied Spine Technologies. It has not been independently investigated or verified by Gerbsman Partners or their respective agents.

Potential purchasers should not rely on any information contained in this memorandum or provided by Gerbsman Partners (or their respective staff, agents, and attorneys) in connection herewith, whether transmitted orally or in writing as a statement, opinion, or representation of fact. Interested parties should satisfy themselves through independent investigations as they or their legal and financial advisors see fit.

Gerbsman Partners, and their respective staff, agents, and attorneys, (i) disclaim any and all implied warranties concerning the truth, accuracy, and completeness of any information provided in connection herewith and (ii) do not accept liability for the information, including that contained in this memorandum, whether that liability arises by reasons of Applied Spine Technologies’ or Gerbsman Partners’ negligence or otherwise.

Any sale of the Applied Spine Technologies Assets will be made on an “as-is,” “where-is,” and “with all faults” basis, without any warranties, representations, or guarantees, either express or implied, of any kind, nature, or type whatsoever from, or on behalf of Applied Spine Technologies and Gerbsman Partners. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Applied Spine Technologies and Gerbsman Partners and their respective staff, agents, and attorneys,  hereby expressly disclaim any and all implied warranties concerning the condition of the Applied Spine Technologies Assets and any portions thereof, including, but not limited to, environmental conditions, compliance with any government regulations or requirements, the implied warranties of habitability, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose.

This memorandum contains confidential information and is not to be supplied to any person without Gerbsman Partners’ prior consent. This memorandum and the information contained herein are subject to the non-disclosure agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.

COMPANY

Headquartered in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, Applied Spine Technologies, Inc. (“AST”) has developed the Stabilimax® System, the only true pedicle screw based dynamic stabilization system validated with Class 1 clinical data.

Founded in 2004, AST is a private, Connecticut-based, clinical stage medical device company. To date the Company has been financed with $47M over three venture rounds. Oxford Bioscience Partners and BioVentures Investors invested $4 million in Applied Spine’s Series A financing. The $15M Series B round was led by Interwest Partners and added DeNovo Ventures to our list of tier one investors. Investor Growth Capital and MB Venture Partners led the $28M C round.

The underlying premise of the Stabilimax System is that painful spine motion increases in an injured spine; Stabilimax treats pain by compensating for the instability and abnormal motion caused by degeneration or injury. It utilizes a novel double concentric spring mechanism that maximizes stiffness and support where the spine needs it most. By eliminating abnormal motion, the Stabilimax System eliminates the compensating load on the surrounding muscles and tissues, which should allow a return to near-normal physiologic motion, function and thus, tissue healing.

AST believes its assets are attractive for a number of reasons:

  • Stabilimax. The Stabilimax® System is positioned to become the US market leader in the $250mm+ Pedicle Screw-Based Dynamic Stabilization segment1, upon successful completion of a clinical trial and PMA approval. OUS opportunities are possible currently, due to CE marked implant inventory and a 25 instrument set inventory to support a 200 surgery launch. The current inventory of implants, pedicle screws, implant components and instruments is valued at approximately $2.7M.  There are no development costs to incur, and products are available immediately.
  • Design. A true dynamic stabilization implant is one that has an optimum stiffness profile, permits interpedicular travel, and maintains a near normal center of rotation2. Quality of motion is as important as quantity3. The Stabilimax design, with its proprietary combination of springs and articulating junctures, utilizes pedicle screws and a posterior surgical approach, which appeals to surgeons due to a low (or no) learning curve. Motion is near normal kinematic, allowing for interpedicular travel, and respecting center of rotation. It is not a hinge, and therefore less harmful to the adjacent level.
  • Clinical Data. Applied Spine has Class 1 data that validates the Stabilimax design rationale, and offers proof of IPT, ROM, and near normal kinematic motion. We have documented the typical stenosis patient’s pre op motion + IPT, and have recorded post op motion and IPT at 12 months for over 100 patients. Preclinical data shows stabilization in face of decompression to be 54% of Intact; Clinical data at the 12 month follow up mimics preclinical data (54% of PreOp). Measurement via Kinematic Indicator (IPT/ROM) shows consistencies with normal kinematics in preclinical and 12 month follow up.
  • Intellectual Property. Applied Spine has 8 issued US patents, 1 notice of allowance, and 8 additional US patent applications in process with parallel filings in the EU. Patents issued include method patents of use of a dual spring dynamic stabilization device as well as apparatus patents covering the dual spring, specific travel and stiffness ranges for the dual spring, and the articulating spheres connection to the pedicle screw that enable intraoperative assembly. As a result, Applied Spine has both defensive and offensive positioning options.
  • Defensive/Offensive Patent Position. The Company now has an established defensive position to protect the Stabilimax device.  Specifically, the defensive patents would make it difficult to design a product that allows for the same amount of physiological motion while using springs.  Additionally, the company is growing its offensive position through the ongoing prosecution of additional applications. Our patent counsel believes that the offensive patents/applications could read on other current devices.  Furthermore, there are continuation patents in process on a variety of related subjects where claim language can continue to be refined to further the company’s offensive position.
  • Competitive advantage. We have become the „last man standing‟ – the only true PMA/IDE product in the pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization segment. Zimmer’s Dynesys was denied PMA by Panel; all other devices such as N-Hance (Synthes), and Transition (Globus) are caught under the FDA‟s 522 order and thereby exposed to labeling issues. As Stabilimax has no fusion labeling – and no 510(k) – this provides us an opportunity to secure first to market position in the US.

Impact of Technology on the Market
The potential positive impact of a pedicle screw based dynamic stabilization system that works in concert with the body’s natural biomechanics has attracted the attention of leading physicians worldwide. The relationship of providing stability without fusion has attracted many competitors but few have been able to support their product design rational with actual clinical data that validates the benefits.  AST’s significant clinical data positions the Stabilimax system for robust market opportunities.  Accessing AST’s intellectual property is critical for any successful endeavor into this very attractive market. Commercialization of its products could provide high returns in this large and fast-growing market.

Applied Spine Technologies Company Profile

Founded in 2004, AST is a private, Connecticut-based, clinical stage medical device company. To date the Company has been financed with $47M over three venture rounds. Oxford Bioscience Partners and BioVentures Investors invested $4 million in Applied Spine’s Series A financing. The $15M Series B round was led by Interwest Partners and added DeNovo Ventures to our list of tier one investors. Investor Growth Capital and MB Venture Partners led the $28M C round.

The Stabilimax is the culmination of over 30 years of focused research from Dr. Manohar Panjabi. Dr. Panjabi, recently retired from Yale University (2006), is regarded as a leading authority on spine biomechanics. He has conducted extensive research on spine implants, analyzing both fusion and motion-preserving devices. Dr. Panjabi has also published more than 265 original research papers, and written two textbooks: Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine, 1990; and Biomechanics in the Musculoskeletal System, 2000. The first of these remains to this day the iconic text for spine clinicians and researchers.

Presently the company has enrolled 146 patients in their IDE clinical study. Applied Spine received approval to start the clinical study in February 2007 with the first US patient enrolled in March 2007. As of July 2010, 60 single level patients and 36 two-level patients as well as 21 control patients will be at the two-year follow-up point. In February 2010, Applied Spine commenced enrollment with the second generation pedicle screw. In this enrollment group we enrolled 20 Stabilimax patients and 9 control patients. These patients will be at the one year follow-up point at the end of 2010.

Applied Spine Technologies’ Assets
AST has developed a portfolio of assets critical to the success of pedicle screw based dynamic stabilization for the lumbar spine. These assets fall into a variety of categories, including:

Patents, Patent Applications and Trademarks

  • Encouraging Class 1 clinical data on over 100 patients shows reduction in pain, reduced adjacent level effects, and near-normal quality and quantity of kinematic motion.
  • Product Inventory to support an immediate OUS sales launch
  • Complimentary Product Designs
  • Manufacturing, Design and Calibration Equipment
  • CE Mark for the Stabilimax System
  • Intellectual Capital and Expertise

The assets of Applied Spine Technologies, Inc. will be sold in whole or in part (collectively, the “Applied Spine Technologies’ Assets”). The sale of these assets is being conducted with the cooperation of Applied Spine Technologies. Applied Spine Technologies and its employees will be available to assist purchasers with due diligence and a prompt, efficient transition to new ownership. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applied Spine Technologies should not be contacted directly without the prior consent of Gerbsman Partners.

Key Personnel

  • CEO: Craig Corrance joined in 2009; Previously CEO Scient’x, Altiva Corp
  • CFO: Terry Brennan joined in 2005; Previously CFO CyVera and CiDRA Corporations

Applied Spine Technologies, Inc. Board of Directors

  • Ellen Baron: Oxford Bioscience Partners – Boston, MA
  • Stephen Campe: Investor Growth Capital (IGC) – New York, NY
  • Marc Goldberg: BioVentures Partners – Boston, MA
  • Michael Sweeney: Interwest Partners – Menlo Park, CA
  • Craig Corrance:CEO, Applied Spine Technologies – Lake Mary, FL

The Bidding Process for Interested Buyers

Interested and qualified parties will be expected to sign a nondisclosure agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to have access to key members of the management and intellectual capital teams and the due diligence “war room” documentation (the “Due Diligence Access”). Each interested party, as a consequence of the Due Diligence Access granted to it, shall be deemed to acknowledge and represent (i) that it is bound by the bidding procedures described herein; (ii) that it has an opportunity to inspect and examine the Applied Spine Technologies Assets and to review all pertinent documents and information with respect thereto; (iii) that it is not relying upon any written or oral statements, representations, or warranties of Gerbsman Partners, or their respective staff, agents, or attorneys; and (iv) all such documents and reports have been provided solely for the convenience of the interested party, and Gerbsman Partners (and their respective, staff, agents, or attorneys) do not make any representations as to the accuracy or completeness of the same.

Following an initial round of due diligence, interested parties will be invited to participate with a sealed bid, for the acquisition of the Applied Spine Technologies Assets. Sealed bids must be submitted so that it is actually received by Gerbsman Partners no later than Friday, October 15, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time (the “Bid Deadline”) at Applied Spine Technologies’ office, located at 30 Cold Spring Rd, Rocky Hill, CT 06067.  Please also email steve@gerbsmanpartners.com with any bid.

Bids should identify those assets being tendered for in a specific and identifiable way.  In particular, please identify separately certain equipment or other fixed assets.  The attached Applied Spine fixed asset list may not be complete and bidders interested in the Applied Spine equipment must submit a separate bid for such assets.

Any person or other entity making a bid must be prepared to provide independent confirmation that they possess the financial resources to complete the purchase where applicable. All bids must be accompanied by a refundable deposit check in the amount of $100,000 (payable to Applied Spine Technologies, Inc.).  The winning bidder will be notified within 3 business days of the Bid Deadline. Unsuccessful bidders will have their deposit returned to them within 3 business days of notification that they are the unsuccessful bidder.

Applied Spine Technologies reserves the right to, in its sole discretion, accept or reject any bid, or withdraw any or all of the assets from sale.  Interested parties should understand that it is expected that the highest and best bid submitted will be chosen as the winning bidder and bidders may not have the opportunity to improve their bids after submission.

Applied Spine Technologies will require the successful bidder to close within a 7 day period. Any or all of the assets of Applied Spine Technologies will be sold on an “as is, where is” basis, with no representation or warranties whatsoever.

All sales, transfer, and recording taxes, stamp taxes, or similar taxes, if any, relating to the sale of the Applied Spine Technologies Assets shall be the sole responsibility of the successful bidder and shall be paid to Applied Spine Technologies at the closing of each transaction.

Read Full Post »

Android phones look to expand app offerings

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, mobile 2.0, Strategy, Technology, Web 2.0, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 2, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Article from SF Gate.

“Pinger Inc., a San Jose developer of mobile applications, can get twice as much in sales from programs for Apple devices than for phones powered by Android software. That’s not stopping it from creating its first Android app.

“Even if the revenue generation might be less, we think it’s still going to be significant,” said Joe Sipher, chief product and marketing officer at Pinger, which makes text-messaging and other programs. “Our users are saying, ‘Gosh, I switched to an Android phone. Can you put your Textfree app on Android?’ ”

Pinger and other programmers don’t want to miss out on the $40 billion that Booz & Co. estimates will come from sales of apps by 2014, much of it from Google Inc.‘s Android platform. Android unseated Research In Motion Ltd.‘s mobile operating system as the top U.S. smart phone software last quarter, making developers more willing to put up with its drawbacks, including higher app-creation costs and an online marketplace some users consider harder to navigate than Apple’s App Store.

PopCap Games Inc., maker of the Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies games, doesn’t have any titles in the Android Market. But by mid-2011, the Seattle company expects to release games simultaneously for iPhone and Android handsets.

“Even though we are not making any money on Android right now, we have pretty high hopes for it,” said Andrew Stein, PopCap’s director of mobile business development. “There’s really no reason why users shouldn’t consume and buy content to the same extent on an Android phone as they are on an iPhone.”

Android phones like Motorola Inc.’s Droid X and HTC Corp.’s Droid Incredible are gaining devotees. Stein expects the revenue generated from Android games to approach that of PopCap’s iPhone versions by the end of 2011.

Apple way ahead

A wide variety of apps – as well as the availability of the most popular ones for games, location, texting and content – is critical to luring phone buyers. Android lags behind Apple by that measure. Apple has more than 250,000 apps available, compared with about 70,000 for Android.

Like Apple, Google takes a 30 percent cut of revenue from apps sold in its marketplace.

“We want to reduce friction and remove the barriers that make it difficult for developers to make great apps available to users – across as many devices, geographies and carriers as possible,” said Randall Sarafa, a Google spokesman.

Google may be taking steps to remedy some of the problems that make Android apps less lucrative to developers.

Apple iTunes users can do one-click shopping because iTunes saves their information. While Android buyers can do the same if they sign up for Google Checkout, that service doesn’t have as many users.

Android Market also lacks features for in-app purchases, which some developers of Apple apps use to sell new game levels or virtual products, said Tim Chang, a venture capitalist at Norwest Venture Partners, whose investments includes Ngmoco of San Francisco, which makes games for the iPhone.

Google is in talks with eBay’s PayPal to add its payment service, three people familiar with the matter said last month. That may ease the process. Google may also offer tools that let developers sell subscriptions and virtual goods from within apps, Andy Rubin, Google’s vice president of engineering, said in June.

For now, producing programs for Android isn’t as lucrative. Loopt Inc., the maker of an app for locating your friends on a map, and Zecter Inc., which offers the ZumoDrive file storage service, said they make less from the sales of their Android apps than they do from their iPhone versions. Neither of the Mountain View companies would specify the difference.

Developers hesitant

“There’s no question Android has a lot more phones out than six months ago, but that’s very different from saying Android is a more appealing platform for developers,” said Sam Altman, chief executive officer at Loopt.

ZumoDrive makes money by getting people to download the free program and then upgrade to a paid version. Thirty percent more iPhone customers do that, said CEO David Zhao.

Besides generating fewer downloads of paid apps, fewer people click on ads in Android programs, according to data from Smaato Inc., a Redwood City mobile-ad firm. In July, the iPhone had a click-through score of 140 in the United States, compared with 103 for Android, Smaato said.

Plus, the market share Gartner Inc. measures for Android – 34 percent in the United States last quarter – doesn’t mean there are that many customers for apps, said Pinger’s Sipher. Some Android phones don’t have the ability to access Google’s app store and the proliferation of models means some programs won’t work on some phones.

App creators have to contend with various versions of Android and differences in screen resolution and keyboards. That makes it more expensive to test programs and can force developers to design for the lowest common denominator, said Bill Predmore, president of POP, which builds mobile applications and ads for such clients as Google, Microsoft Corp. and Target Corp.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/01/BU381F6GOA.DTL&type=tech#ixzz0yLeTxmEa

Read Full Post »

Tony Fish member of Gerbsman Partners Board of Intellectual Capital and founder at AMF ventures to speak at Mobile 2.0 conference in San Francisco

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, tagged , , , , , on August 31, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Please reserve the date as registration for Mobile 2 (Silicon Valley) in now is open.

Event : Mobile 2 Event

Style : Business/ strategy day & developer day

Date :  Monday 20th and Tuesday 21st September 2010

Venue :  San   Francisco

Timing :  Full day events

Registration :  Click here.

Discount :  Enter “Friends” code for 20% discount.

In its 5th year, MOBILE 2.0 Silicon Valley brings together experts and thought leaders from all aspects of the mobile ecosystem, including startups, investors, mobile carriers, device manufacturers, and mobile application developers and web technologists. The event is focused on new Mobile Applications and Services, Mobile Ecosystems, and Disruptive Mobile Innovation.

I will in SFO from Wednesday 15th to Wednesday 22nd and would be good to meet up.  I will be hosting again the fireside chat, this year with Russ McGuire, David Katz, James Parton and Fabio Sisini.

As usual Mobile 2.0 Silicon Valley is all about giving our audience the opportunity to learn, network and voice views. The Event does not talk at you — you are the Mobile Community and we strive to create an atmosphere that challenges your business assumptions and provides you with hands on understanding of mobile platforms.

Looking forward to seeing you at the event!

/ Tony Fish

Read Full Post »

A Recapitalization’s Risk And Reward

Posted in Board Of Intellectual Capital, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2010| Leave a Comment »

Article from WSJ´s Venture Capital Dispatch.

“A last-minute recapitalization to save a 10-year-old optical networking company demonstrates the extreme risk and possible rewards that come with these types of investments.

Around the turn of the century, telecommunications carriers, hungry for more bandwidth in anticipation of the coming Internet boom, were already looking past the then-evolving 10-gigabit standard to a 40-gigabit standard, leading companies like Mintera Corp. to begin developing products for that market. After the dot-com bust, that market didn’t take off the way Mintera’s investors and other venture capitalists that put money into the sector originally anticipated.

Many companies closed, but a few 40-gigabit companies had decent outcomes, such as CoreOptics Inc., which was sold to Cisco Systems Inc. for $99 million in May, and StrataLight Communications Inc., sold two years ago to Opnext Inc. for $169 million.

Mintera, which burned through about $73 million in venture capital since it was founded in 2000, was able to build a decent business, generating $20 million in revenue over the last year and capturing around one-sixth of its total market. But that wasn’t enough to generate a home run for its investors any time soon.

By this year, it was clear that some of Mintera’s weren’t willing to commit more capital to the company, so it searched for a buyer. Normally, the investors would have stuck by the company, putting in more capital for growth, but the “real reason it had to be sold was that it had been funded by venture capital firms that had mature funds that had come to the end of their lifecycle,” said Jim Murray, a managing general partner of Court Square Ventures, an early investor in Mintera.

The company needed enough capital to keep the lights on while it searched for a buyer. At the end of May, Court Square decided to double down in exchange for a near-majority stake in the business.

As happens in a recap, the equity structure of Mintera was reset. Two shareholders, RRE Ventures and STAR Ventures, held onto stakes, but three others – Polaris Venture Partners, Portview Communications Partners and Glynn Capital Management – were washed out completely.

At the same time, talks were under way with a buyer, Oclaro Inc., but a deal was less than certain. Oclaro looked like it would walk away, Murray said. “We knew it was a good company, if Oclaro didn’t want to buy it someone would,” he said, declining to say how much capital Court Square put into Mintera.

Six weeks after Court Square invested, Oclaro agreed to buy the company in July for $12 million in cash with the potential to earn as much as $20 million if Mintera reaches certain milestones.”

Read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »