Comments on: Palm, Microsoft and Verizon Announce Press Conference

I'm sure many PIC readers will be more than curious about this device.

-Ryan

In case the 'three wise men' take questions from the floor, please consider adding the following to your list:

1. How much money (if any) was Palm paid by Verizon (or M$) to cover the development costs on the rumoured 700w?

2. Are other carriers to have access to the rumoured 700w, or is this just for Verizon?

3. How many units has Palm contracted to deliver to Verizon and over what period? Is this a 'take or pay' arrangement?

4. Does Palm have contracts with HTC to tie in production? If so, does this take up all of HTC's capacity (so that others have to stand in the queue)?

5. Will Verizon provide funding to Palm to provide sufficient working capital to allow a big increase in production?

6. Will Verizon continue to offer the Treo 650?

7. Will Verizon drop HP and other smartphones?

I'm sure that others have lots of other questions too.

The problem for the PalmOS-loyalists will be that the PalmOS Treos will become the red-headed step-child of the Palm lineup and eventuallly discontinued for lack of demand. This is the classic negative spiral Gates talks about. Garnet has not/won't keep up with WM - especially under foreign ownership.

Palm's CFO said it best "No one ever got fired for buying MSFT."

If Palm is to continue to make Palm 0S based Treos, then they will need to think again about the branding. You can just hear this question being repeated thousands of times around the country:

Q: What's the difference between the Treo 650 and the Treo 700w?

What's a 17-year old sales clerk going to say to that? Well, the 700 is bigger than 650, therefore it must be better or more advanced. (Which is debatable, IMO.)

You're right, I guess.

But Wall Street doesn't normally think beyond this quarter's (or this year's) numbers. And with bonuses/options tied to share price performance, who can blame corporates for focusing on the short term?

Anyways, John Maynard Keynes* said 'in the long run we are all dead'. He was right about this (but so wrong on much else.)

* Footnote: A famous economist.

My company offered to buy me one like they do for about 400+ other people in the company - BUT - there were a few catches: I'd lose my current phone number and they'd own the new number if I ever left, I'd have to switch to Sprint (instead of Verizon), I'd have to sync wirelessly with MS Outlook (no cable sync, no Palm Desktop, etc.), and they'd own the phone. You might think I'm carzy for turning down free hardware, but for $400, I'd rather just buy my own and own/control my own phone. I did, however, accept their free Dell Latitude Notebook though!!!

Are you implying that the card is only PPC-compatible?

Oliver

Visit www.tapland.com for Zodiac news and discussion.

Oliver"

OS support for:

• PDA - PocketPC 2002, PocketPC 2003, Windows Mobile 2003

Yes

Surur

Mine isn't. And works just fine with that card. So I guess the correct answer would be "no."

Oh, and then I noticed WM 5.0 isn't listed among the supported operating systems you listed for the SanDisk card. Hmmm.

Oliver

Visit www.tapland.com for Zodiac news and discussion.

I see it more in a context of how much competition there is for each model. While there's a lot of competition in the smartphone market, the Treo is the only breakout success, so lots of people are buying Treos, even people who might not otherwise buy a typical Palm.

Meanwhile, Palm's traditional handhelds are suffering from an excess of competition: basic Zires are being challenged in the pure PIM market by more advanced cell phones, and the high-end market is being taken over by PocketPCs, which basically leaves Palm with the Tungsten E2 as its classic champion. So high-end and low-end sales are sagging, meaning a greater ratio of Treos to Tungstens and Zires being sold.

While there's a certain amount of truth that Palm lives on upgraders, that's not their only market. The Treo opened up more potential buyers. That's really the name of the game, and the reason that you want compelling--new buyers. Something like the Treo, or a cutting-edge traditional handheld, brings in new people because it's innovative and unique.

Oliver, no offense, but I've heard that old "X is dead" ... "Mine's not." response come from enthusiasts of all sorts of dead platforms. I'm glad that your Zodiac is still working, but without new units being sold, no new games, and little support, I think that most people would indeed label the Zodiac platform as being "dead."

No offense taken. I've been using a Treo 650 as my primary handheld for four or five months. Not because the Zodiac was dying but because I got tired of carrying two devices (I joined the convergence camp again). That said, Zodiac owners who bought the device primarily as a PDA aren't in a significantly different position than, say, Treo 600 or Tungsten T3 owners. It's not being produced anymore, and so the community isn't growing, but most existing and upcoming PalmOS software will continue to work fine. The two-year-old hardware is competitive with many other current devices. And it even supports some hardware that our friend Surur figured was PPC-only (and on top of that, probably has been discontinued by SanDisk anyway).

If you read some of my posts over on Tapland, you'll find that I don't have any problems with Palm, Inc. making Windows Mobile devices. If that's what it takes to create shareholder value and keep/increase their workforce, I am all for it. Doesn't mean that it's the right platform for me at this time.

Oliver

Visit www.tapland.com for Zodiac news and discussion.

Uh..my site is not successful? Hmm. Better tell that to Dell, HP, Microsoft, Palm, Nintendo, Adobe, Macromedia, Sony, etc., that send me review products, prominently list me on their sites, and send me review units to write about. Not to mention all the traffic I'm getting to my site.

Oh, you mean that you think my site isn't successful because I don't build a community around it? Well, that is purely intentional, as your childish spouting and bitter whimpering is a is a classic example of why I don't want (or need) to surround my site with posters such as yourself. Stay away from my neck of the woods, if you please. Go back to your dying site...and handheld.

-------------------------------
Editor, http://Pocketfactory.com
Contributing Editor, http://digitalmediathoughts.com

Rim should be shaking in their boots. The CEO will get a Treo 700w next year. His Exchange server will have the Messaging and Security service pack installed already, so all admin will have to do is check a few boxes, and he will be up and running. No additional cost besides the cost of the device. Now all the rest of the execs will want one, and if they buy their own it wont cost the company anything. 2 years later RIM will be a forgotten memory.

Surur

Background of the Merger

PalmSource’s board of directors has periodically discussed and reviewed PalmSource’s business, strategic direction, performance and prospects in the context of developments in the PDA, smartphone and feature phone markets and the competitive landscapes in which PalmSource operates. PalmSource’s board has also at times discussed with senior management various potential strategic alternatives involving possible acquisitions or business combinations that could complement and enhance PalmSource’s competitive strengths and strategic position.

11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents
Recognizing the maturing of its core PDA business, during the fiscal year ending June 3, 2005, PalmSource began to transition its business model to address potential new growth opportunities in the broader phone market. As part of this strategy, in January 2005, PalmSource completed its acquisition of China MobileSoft Ltd., the parent of a Nanjing, China-based developer and licensor of software for mobile feature phones, a potential new platform for Palm OS outside of the current smartphone market. In addition, PalmSource announced a corporate restructuring on June 29, 2005, which included a 16% reduction in PalmSource’s U.S. headcount. PalmSource intended the restructuring to streamline its operating infrastructure, focus its product development activities and accelerate the integration of the China-based engineering resources into PalmSource’s global product development efforts

Between late May 2005 and July 2005, PalmSource was approached by ACCESS Co. and by a communications technology company, Nokia, on an unsolicited basis, to discuss a potential strategic relationship. This led in each case to unsolicited indications of interest in acquiring PalmSource.

Having received two unsolicited inquiries regarding a potential acquisition, on July 6, 2005, PalmSource’s board of directors approved engaging financial and business advisors to assist PalmSource in evaluating its strategic alternatives. In addition, board members Gassée, Finocchio and Keever were appointed as a committee to oversee, on a day to day basis, the process of reviewing strategic alternatives and to report back to the entire board with respect to material developments and recommendations. The board of directors also subsequently engaged an outside consultant to assist the committee in its activities.

On July 13, 2005, the committee of the board interviewed potential financial advisors to advise the company with respect to the unsolicited inquiries and the company’s strategic alternatives and, on July 18, 2005, PalmSource engaged Jefferies Broadview.

Following Mr. Finocchio’s resignation from the PalmSource board of directors on July 18, 2005, Dr. Shoven was named to the committee.

On July 18, 2005, members of the committee and PalmSource’s senior management met with representatives of Jefferies Broadview and representatives of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin (referred to in this proxy statement as Howard Rice), PalmSource’s external legal counsel, to discuss the initial inquiries and to discuss a process to consider strategic alternatives. A list of companies that could potentially have an interest in discussions with PalmSource was compiled and reviewed during the meeting. Three companies in addition to ACCESS and Nokia were selected by PalmSource for initial contact by Jefferies Broadview.

On July 19, 2005, Messrs. Nobuya Murofushi and Koichi Narasaki from ACCESS Co. met with the committee, PalmSource’s senior management and representatives of Jefferies Broadview to discuss the rationale and strategy for a potential acquisition.

During late July and early August 2005, Jefferies Broadview was in contact with ACCESS Co., Nokia and three other communications technology and mobile computing companies to discuss a potential strategic transaction with PalmSource. One of these other companies determined it was not interested in considering the opportunity. The remaining companies, ACCESS Co., Nokia, Palm and Motorola, conducted preliminary diligence on PalmSource and held various meetings with members of the committee, PalmSource’s senior management and representatives of Jefferies Broadview during late July and early August 2005.

During August 2005, Motorola determined that it was not prepared to make a proposal to acquire PalmSource, leaving ACCESS Co., Nokia and Palm in the process.

On August 18 and 19, 2005, ACCESS Co. and Nokia provided initial indications of interest to acquire PalmSource at prices in the range of $12.25 to $12.75 per share in cash.

12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents
On August 19, 2005, the committee met with PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview and the outside consultant to the committee to review the status of the process being conducted by Jefferies Broadview and the indications of interest received from ACCESS Co. and Nokia.

On August 20, 2005, Palm provided its initial indication of interest to acquire PalmSource at a price of $11.00 per share in half cash and half stock.

On August 21, 2005, PalmSource’s board of directors held a special meeting at which PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview, representatives of Howard Rice and the outside consultant were present to discuss the status of the process and the initial indications of interest received from the three potential bidders. Howard Rice advised the board with respect to its fiduciary obligations with respect to a transaction of the type proposed by the indications of interest and the standard of care that would have to be satisfied under Delaware law in meeting those obligations. Based on the initial indications of interest that had been received from ACCESS Co. and Company A and taking into consideration PalmSource’s prospects as a stand-alone entity, the board of directors decided it was in the best interests of the stockholders of PalmSource to continue the process and to provide ACCESS Co. and Nokia with the opportunity to conduct broader diligence on PalmSource. The board of directors determined that Palm's bid was not competitive with the other bids and directed Jefferies Broadview to inform Palm that it would not be allowed into the next stage of the process based on its current bid. In addition, PalmSource directed Howard Rice to begin preparation of a draft merger agreement to present to the bidders.

On August 21, 2005, at the direction of the board of directors, Jefferies Broadview contacted Palm and informed Palm that it would not be included in the next stage of the process because its initial indication of interest was not competitive. On August 24, 2005, Palm provided a revised initial indication of interest at a price of $13.00 per share and on August 25, 2005, Palm was provided the opportunity to conduct broader diligence on PalmSource.

Following the August 21, 2005 PalmSource special board meeting, at the direction of the board of directors, Jefferies Broadview contacted two additional companies, a communications technology company and a network computing company, to gauge their interest in a potential strategic transaction with PalmSource. Both of these companies subsequently indicated that they were not interested in pursuing a transaction.

During the period beginning August 22, 2005, with respect to ACCESS Co. and Nokia, and beginning August 25, 2005, with respect to Palm, through September 6, 2005, the bidders met with members of PalmSource’s senior management, members of the committee and the outside consultant and conducted in depth diligence on the business, technology, operations and financial condition of PalmSource. A draft merger agreement was provided to each of the three bidders during this period. Counsel for each of the bidders and representatives of Howard Rice exchanged drafts of the merger agreement and negotiated with respect to the terms of each of the three proposed merger agreements, including terms related to the potential structures for the transaction, treatment of employee equity incentives and the scope and content of the disclosure schedules.

On September 5, 2005, ACCESS Co., Nokia and Palm provided bids to acquire PalmSource at prices in the range of $13.00 to $14.00 per share. ACCESS Co. and Nokia proposed all cash transactions, and Palm proposed a half cash and half stock transaction.

On September 5, 2005, the committee met with PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview, representatives of Howard Rice and the outside consultant to review and consider the three bids. The committee directed Jefferies Broadview to instruct the three bidders to provide final bids on September 7, 2005.

On September 6, 2005, the committee and PalmSource’s senior management met with members of Nokia's senior management. At this meeting, Nokia presented its strategy if the proposed strategic transaction were to proceed and Nokia acquired PalmSource.

13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents
On September 6, 2005, PalmSource’s senior management and Jefferies Broadview held meetings with senior management of Palm to conduct diligence on the bidder’s business and financial condition given that Palm was offering stock as a part of the consideration for the transaction.

On September 6, 2005, PalmSource’s board of directors held a special meeting at which PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview, representatives of Howard Rice and the outside consultant were present to discuss the status of discussions with ACCESS Co., Nokia and Palm and to review their bids. There was extensive discussion about the transactions proposed by the three bidders, the different structures and consideration being offered, the risks and benefits of each structure and the financial condition of each of the three bidders.

On September 7, 2005, ACCESS Co., Nokia and Palm provided revised bids to acquire PalmSource in the range of $15.00 to $15.90 per share. The proposed nature of the consideration being offered by the three bidders remained unchanged from the initial bids.

On September 7, 2005, PalmSource’s board of directors held a special meeting at which PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview, representatives of Howard Rice and the outside consultant were present to review the revised bids to acquire PalmSource. Further discussion was held about the proposed transaction and the relative risks and benefits of proceeding with each bidder. During the board meeting, PalmSource received increased bids from ACCESS Co. and Nokia and discussed with all three bidders the prospects of obtaining higher offers. Palm did not increase its bid during the meeting. ACCESS Co.’s last and highest bid to acquire PalmSource was for $17.00 per share in an all-cash transaction. The last and highest bid from Nokia to acquire PalmSource was for $17.25 per share in an all-cash transaction, conditioned on completion of merger agreement negotiations and execution of a definitive agreement prior to the opening of market the next day. The board of directors concluded that Nokia had made the highest bid and Jefferies Broadview delivered its oral opinion that, as of September 7, 2005, based on and subject to certain assumptions, qualifications, limitations and factors, the $17.25 in cash per share to be received by holders of PalmSource common stock was fair, from a financial point of view, to holders of PalmSource common stock. Howard Rice summarized legal and contractual issues relating to the proposed transaction, including the status of the merger agreement, the disclosure schedule and closing conditions to which the transaction would be subject. PalmSource’s board of directors then informed Nokia that it had authorized its senior management and counsel to proceed on the basis of the $17.25 per share bid, conditioned on completion of merger agreement and disclosure schedule negotiations and execution of a definitive agreement.

After the September 7, 2005 special board meeting, negotiations continued between counsel for Nokia and Howard Rice concerning the terms of a definitive merger agreement and the related disclosure schedule.

Very shortly after the September 7, 2005 special board meeting, ACCESS Co. submitted to PalmSource by e-mail an unsolicited increased offer to acquire PalmSource for $18.50 per share in an all-cash transaction. Mr. Gassée, members of PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview, representatives of Howard Rice and the outside consultant then discussed this higher offer. It was determined that a special board meeting needed to be convened on September 8, 2005 to consider the higher offer. Jefferies Broadview was directed to inform the financial advisor to Nokia that a higher offer had been received and that the PalmSource board of directors was reviewing the higher offer. Through the night of September 7, 2005 and into the morning of September 8, 2005, representatives of Howard Rice continued to negotiate the terms of definitive merger agreements and disclosure schedules with counsel to ACCESS Co. and counsel to Nokia.

On September 8, 2005, PalmSource received a letter from Nokia demanding that PalmSource enter into an agreement with Nokia based on the $17.25 price. ACCESS Co. was apprised of the receipt of that letter.

14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents
On September 8, 2005, PalmSource’s board of directors convened a special meeting at which PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview, representatives of Howard Rice and the outside consultant were present to discuss the ACCESS Co. $18.50 bid and the demand letter from Nokia. Howard Rice again advised the board with respect to its fiduciary obligations. The board of directors directed management to continue negotiations of the terms of the definitive merger agreements and disclosure schedules with ACCESS Co. and with Nokia. The board of directors adjourned the meeting and set a time for reconvening later that day.

During the adjournment of the September 8, 2005, special board meeting, at the direction of the board of directors, Jefferies Broadview contacted ACCESS Co. to have ACCESS Co. confirm its bid at $18.50 and Howard Rice continued to negotiate with counsel to ACCESS Co. and with counsel to Nokia the terms of definitive merger agreements and disclosure schedules.

Later on September 8, 2005, PalmSource’s board of directors reconvened and was presented with the terms of the definitive merger agreement and disclosure schedule that had been negotiated with ACCESS Co. PalmSource’s senior management, representatives of Jefferies Broadview and representatives of Howard Rice were present when the board reconvened. Jefferies Broadview discussed the financial capability of ACCESS Co. to close the transaction. Howard Rice summarized legal and contractual issues relating to the proposed transaction with ACCESS Co., including closing conditions to which the transaction would be subject. Jefferies Broadview reviewed its financial analysis of the merger consideration proposed in the ACCESS Co. transaction. Jefferies Broadview then rendered its oral opinion, subsequently confirmed in writing, that, as of September 8, 2005, based on and subject to certain assumptions, qualifications, limitations and factors described in the Jefferies Broadview opinion, the $18.50 in cash per share, as such amount may be adjusted in accordance with the merger agreement, to be received by holders of PalmSource common stock pursuant to the merger agreement was fair, from a financial point of view, to such holders. During the course of the meeting, representatives of Nokia contacted Jefferies Broadview to inform Jefferies Broadview that Nokia was prepared to discuss an offer that was above their last offer price but was still below ACCESS Co.’s offer. This information was communicated to the board of directors, but no further bid was made by Nokia. By the unanimous vote of directors present at the time of the vote, PalmSource’s board, among other things, duly approved the merger agreement with ACCESS Co. as being in the best interests of the stockholders of PalmSource and directed that the merger agreement be submitted to PalmSource’s stockholders for adoption at the annual meeting with the recommendation of the board that PalmSource’s stockholders adopt the merger agreement at the annual meeting. During the special meeting, PalmSource entered into the merger agreement with ACCESS Co.

Following the special meeting and later that evening, the transaction was publicly announced in both Japan and the United States and, on September 9, 2005, PalmSource filed a Form 8-K with the SEC describing the transaction.

Other Recent Events

On September 13, 2005, Nokia submitted a letter to PalmSource demanding payment of $8,697,595 and stating that Nokia intended to file a complaint against PalmSource in Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County if the payment was not made by September 16, 2005. The letter enclosed a copy of a draft complaint against PalmSource alleging a claim for breach of contract. In the letter and in the draft complaint, Nokia generally alleged the following: (i) PalmSource and Nokia entered into a purported merger agreement, (ii) PalmSource elected not to proceed with the purported merger agreement with Nokia, and (iii) PalmSource must pay Nokia $8,697,595 in connection with a termination provision in the purported merger agreement. In a letter to Nokia dated September 16, 2005, PalmSource denied all of Nokia's allegations and maintained that PalmSource did not enter into a definitive merger agreement with Nokia. On September 20, 2005, Nokia sent a response to PalmSource’s September 16, 2005 letter stating that Nokia would withhold further action until at least October 1, 2005.

Fo' shizzle ma bizzle

So, do you have pictures of the New Treo 666 model? with all top and bottom menu stuff from that OSes on the screen, there should be room for only two lines of text in the middle left of the display.

Actually, we've already seen the horned Treo 666 at Engadget last year. This would have to be the Treo 666WPL model.

I tried Windows CE and hated it. Bought a Palm V.

I've been using Palm OS for years now, but could consider a shift. I tried Pocket PC, and it works fine.

Hope Palm sticks with the Palm OS, but it's nice having choices.

I am right there with you on this one.

As the song goes: "It's the end of the World as we know it."

In the Spirit of Umoja,
Ronin

Surur

(pleaes forgive the American footbal analogy)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/28/the_ms_plan_for_smartphones/

Surur

Can you provide more information? Who are these two "best players" and when will there be more details? I cant wait to see these best products!!!!!

On a side node, what do your comments have to do with the article which seems to mention a media event featuring:

1) A maker of buggy handheld devices
2) A maker of buggy operating system
3) A crappy telecomm provider?

Thanks much. Can't wait to get more details!!!

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=6m&s=DELL&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=sunw

I think you and I both know that Dell's high-volume, wafer-thin-margin model isn't the example you're looking for. And how much R&D does Dell do anyway?

"We are all about R&D and innovation.

Really? I always thought HTC was all about rock-bottom costs due to sweatshop labour.

Nope, I think a sweatshop helped build it though.

So you think share performance over 5 years is not a reasonable measure of the leadership and stratergies of a company?

Why over 5 years specifically? Seems like rather an arbitrary frame of reference. (I think you can do better than that.)

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=sun

;-)

I hope you put your money where your mouth was
5 years ago and lost your shirt.

I did rather well out of the dot-com boom, thanks.

Why are you posting graphs of Microsoft's share price anyway? We're talking about its licensees.

More to the point, many companies have done well by partnering with MS.

Well, we've debunked Dell and HTC. Who else did you have in mind?

However I know of many companies that became shareholder disasters by trying to go it alone.

That doesn't actually prove your point, does it?

Hopefully Palm will benefit from this alliance

In the short term I think Palm will do well with WM. In the long term - well, it's been a rather a long time since Palm have done anything genuinely innovative. I wonder if they still have it in them.

29. Posted Sep 22, 2005, 1:31 PM ET by steve

You windows haters crack me up. I'm sure you look trendy with your Ipod, non starbucks coffee and VW passat but the truth is, it's a better OS. My 650 reboots or locks up at least 3 times a day. My Windows Mobile phone didn't do it once. Get over your trendy Micro$soft attitude and while you're at it, take your John Kerry sticker off. You lost already.

That Dell and HTC aren't technological R&D companies.

Whats arbitrary about going from now till as far back as yahoo will let me?

'How far back yahoo will let you' is an arbitrary point. If you want to make a meaningful analysis of Sun's share price, try correlating it with actions Sun has taken.

You've demonstrated short term fluctuations, and Ive demonstrated that Scott has not returned share holder value.

See previous point.

You windows haters crack me up. I'm sure you look trendy with your Ipod, non starbucks coffee and VW passat but the truth is, it's a better OS. My 650 reboots or locks up at least 3 times a day. My Windows Mobile phone didn't do it once. Get over your trendy Micro$soft attitude and while you're at it, take your John Kerry sticker off. You lost already.

LOL! He's absolutely right of course, if we use Linux then the terrorists have already won!

I see absolutely no discernable difference in the Western US and US major cities between Verizon and Sprint's coverage. Somehow, Verizon STILL gets customers for their higher priced voice and their skyrocketed-high price data charges. The Treo is all digital, leaving Verizon's GTE analog legacy a non-factor.

Verizon ought to be paying their marketing staff in gold dubloons for continuing to sell the same thing Sprint sells at 23% of what Verizon charges. PT Barnam's got nothing on them...

I do believe that that's called shameless mixing of metaphors.

Lol!

I'm still working on any good reason for "Bill" to do anything to save them. Absolutely he will show up at the "gathering" and sound all excited about the huge "potential" that Palm brings with them as they now join with the rest of the Mob. But anything more than that? Only as much as is needed to ensure the death of PalmSource/Access. Maybe I'm missing something, but after that happens, I can't imagine any reason.

I'm still waiting for the mythical "color HandEra."

Why? Because they showed a loss? Hardly a surprise right now since they're back in building mode and there's been no traction by Cobalt yet. Certainly no surprises here for ACCESS.

What's more interesting in that filing is the composition of PalmSource's business: 39% decrease in licenses for PDAs and 80% increase in licenses for smartphones. The smartphone growth hasn't been enough to balance the loss of PDA revenue so far, but that's because it was growing from a smaller base. Now we're at the point where Palm OS smartphones and PDAs are almost equal. Even if the Treo 700w cannibalized half the sales of the "700p" and Palm OS smartphones grew by only 40% (and ACCESS probably estimated something like this) Palm OS is still much better positioned than MS or Symbian to grow in the biggest smartphone market: Asia.

You guys need to lighten up.

David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
www.pikesoft.com
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog

You are discussing the September 22 filing.

My post was about the September 23 filing.

Surur, your naivete is endearing (as always).

-- http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001193125%2D05%2D190744%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2005%5C09%5C23%5C&CoName=PALMSOURCE+INC&FormType=PREM14A&RcvdDate=9%2F23%2F2005&pdf=

http://tinyurl.com/bhszc

David Beers
Pikesoft Mobile Computing
www.pikesoft.com
Software Everywhere blog
www.pikesoft.com/blog

Interesting that Access came in with an initial $12/ share bid. At $18.50 I sure hope they do not have buyers regret. Their period for "broader dilligence" was pretty short (August 25 till September 9 or less).

Surur