-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----
Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR
Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov
Originator-Key-Asymmetric:
MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen
TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB
MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA,
Dw0kX1Wxk6ARfHuUBli0ERrZqxz4+aUljej2DL+n9uMtMpILhtQ0FGeCF5PI4ygk
HyB78GQzyVhMnoVy6orw9w==
UNITED STATES FORM 10-Q
[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005
OR
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from ________to _________
Commission file number 000-21783
8X8, INC.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
|
|
|
|
3151 Jay Street
Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 727-1885
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. x YES ¨ NO
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer ¨ Accelerated filer x Non-accelerated filer ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). ¨ YES x NO
The number of shares of the Registrant's Common Stock outstanding as of February 1, 2006 was 61,058,133.
8X8, INC.
FORM 10-Q PDF
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION | Page No. |
Item 1. Financial Statements: |
|
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2005 and March 31, 2005 |
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 |
|
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 |
|
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements |
|
Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations |
|
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk |
|
Item 4. Controls and Procedures |
|
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION |
|
Item 6. Exhibits |
|
Signature |
|
Part I -- FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
8X8, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands, unaudited)
December 31, March 31, 2005 2005 -------------- -------------- ASSETS Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents ....................... $ 16,807 $ 22,515 Restricted cash ................................. 250 250 Short-term investments .......................... 10,663 9,035 Accounts receivable, net ........................ 619 1,144 Inventory ....................................... 3,188 1,600 Deferred cost of goods sold ..................... 1,364 2,122 Other current assets ............................ 776 363 -------------- -------------- Total current assets .......................... 33,667 37,029 Property and equipment, net ....................... 2,917 1,788 Other assets ...................................... 262 263 -------------- -------------- $ 36,846 $ 39,080 ============== ============== LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY Current liabilities: Accounts payable ................................ $ 4,923 $ 4,496 Accrued compensation ............................ 760 515 Accrued warranty ................................ 252 187 Deferred revenue ................................ 2,042 2,602 Other accrued liabilities ....................... 2,348 1,536 -------------- -------------- Total current liabilities ..................... 10,325 9,336 -------------- -------------- Other liabilities.................................... 76 -- -------------- -------------- Commitments and contingencies (Note 8) Stockholders' equity: Common stock .................................... 61 54 Additional paid-in capital ...................... 214,763 200,576 Accumulated other comprehensive loss ............ (20) (20) Accumulated deficit ............................. (188,359) (170,866) -------------- -------------- Total stockholders' equity .................... 26,445 29,744 -------------- -------------- $ 36,846 $ 39,080 ============== ==============
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.
8X8, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
(Unaudited)
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended December 31, December 31, -------------------- -------------------- 2005 2004 2005 2004 --------- --------- --------- --------- License and service revenues ........................ $ 6,769 $ 2,332 17,484 $ 5,646 Product revenues .................................... 1,714 632 4,067 1,918 --------- --------- ---------- ---------- Total revenues ................................... 8,483 2,964 21,551 7,564 --------- --------- ---------- ---------- Operating expenses: Cost of license and service revenues .............. 3,326 1,442 8,190 3,492 Cost of product revenues .......................... 3,357 1,073 7,999 2,862 Research and development .......................... 1,470 784 4,240 2,044 Selling, general and administrative ............... 7,244 5,650 19,151 11,785 --------- --------- --------- --------- Total operating expenses ......................... 15,397 8,949 39,580 20,183 --------- --------- --------- --------- Loss from operations ................................ (6,914) (5,985) (18,029) (12,619) Other income, net ................................... 125 145 536 440 Benefit for income taxes ............................ -- -- -- 20 --------- --------- --------- --------- Net loss ............................................ $ (6,789) $ (5,840) $ (17,493) $ (12,159) ========= ========= ========= ========= Net loss per share: Basic and diluted.................................... $ (0.12) $ (0.13) $ (0.32) $ (0.28) ========= ========= ========= ========= Weighted average number of shares: Basic and diluted.................................... 54,836 46,718 54,181 42,862
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.
8X8, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands, unaudited)
Nine Months Ended December 31, ---------------------- 2005 2004 ---------- ---------- Cash flows from operating activities: Net loss ...................................................... $ (17,493) $ (12,159) Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities: Gain on sale of business ............................... -- -- Depreciation and amortization .......................... 520 108 Stock compensation ..................................... -- 3 Other .................................................. 5 12 Changes in assets and liabilities.............................. (13) (169) ---------- ---------- Net cash used in operating activities ................... (16,981) (12,205) ---------- ---------- Cash flows from investing activities: Purchases of property and equipment ........................ (1,248) (1,371) Restricted cash decrease.................................... -- 550 Purchase of short term investments ......................... (7,083) (610) Sales and maturities of short-term investments ............. 5,400 -- ---------- ---------- Net cash used in investing activities ................... (2,931) (1,431) ---------- ---------- Cash flows from financing activities: Capital lease payments ..................................... (13) -- Proceeds from issuance of common stock under employee stock 158 272 Proceeds from common stock offerings, net .................. 14,059 22,226 ---------- ---------- Net cash provided by financing activities .............. 14,204 22,498 ---------- ---------- Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents .......... (5,708) 8,862 Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period ...... 22,515 13,249 ---------- ---------- Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period ............ $ 16,807 $ 22,111 ========== ========== Supplemental disclosure: Assets acquired under capital lease......................... $ 108 $ -- ========== ==========
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.
8X8, INC.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS THE COMPANY 8x8, Inc. (8x8 or the Company) develops and markets communication technology and services for
Internet protocol or, IP, telephony and video applications. The Company was incorporated in California in February 1987, and in
December 1996 was reincorporated in Delaware. The Company offers the Packet8 broadband voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, and video communications
service, Packet8 Virtual Office service and videophone equipment and services. The Packet8 voice and video communications service
(Packet8) enables broadband Internet users to add digital voice and video communications services to their high-speed Internet
connection. Customers can choose a direct-dial phone number from any of the rate centers offered by the service, and then use an
8x8-supplied terminal adapter to connect any telephone to a broadband Internet connection and make or receive calls from a regular
telephone number. All Packet8 telephone accounts come with voice mail, caller ID, call waiting, call waiting caller ID, call forwarding,
hold, line-alternate, 3-way conferencing, web access to account controls, and real-time online billing. In addition, 8x8 offers a
videophone for use with the Packet8 service and a business telephone for use with the Packet8 Virtual Office service. Substantially all of the Company's revenues are generated from the sale, license and provisioning of VoIP products, services and
technology. Prior to fiscal 2004, the Company was focused on its VoIP semiconductor business (through its subsidiary Netergy
Microelectronics, Inc.) and hosted iPBX solutions business (through its subsidiary Centile, Inc.). In late fiscal 2003, the Company
began to devote more of its resources to the promotion, distribution and development of the Packet8 service than to its existing
semiconductor business or hosted iPBX solutions business. The Company completed several transactions during fiscal 2004 to license
and sell technology and assets of these former businesses, including the sale of its hosted iPBX research and development center in
France, the sale and license of its next generation video semiconductor development effort, and the license of technology and
manufacturing rights for its VoIP semiconductor products to other semiconductor companies. In addition, during January 2004, the
Company announced the end of life of its VoIP semiconductor products, and began accepting last time buy orders from customers.
The Company continues to own the voice and video technology related to the semiconductor and iPBX businesses, and utilizes this
technology in the Packet8 service offering, and continues to sell or license this technology to third parties. The Company's fiscal year ends on March 31 of each calendar year. Each reference to a fiscal year in
these notes to the consolidated financial statements refers to the fiscal year ending March 31 of the calendar year indicated (for
example, fiscal 2006 refers to the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006). LIQUIDITY The Company has sustained net losses and negative cash flows from operations since fiscal 1999 that have been funded
primarily through the issuance of equity securities and borrowings. Management believes that current cash and cash equivalents will be
sufficient to finance the Company's operations through at least the next twelve months. However, the Company continually evaluates its
cash needs and anticipates seeking additional equity or debt financing in order to achieve the Company's overall business objectives.
There can be no assurance that such financing will be available, or, if available, at a price that is acceptable to the Company. Failure to
generate sufficient revenues, raise additional capital or reduce certain discretionary spending could have an adverse impact on the
Company's ability to achieve its longer term business objectives. 2. BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited and
have been prepared on substantially the same basis as our annual financial statements for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005. In the
opinion of management, these financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) considered
necessary for a fair statement of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The preparation
of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the condensed consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods.
Actual results could differ from these estimates. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Company's audited consolidated financial
statements for the year ended March 31, 2005 and notes thereto included in the Company's fiscal 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Certain prior period balances have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. The results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods included in these financial statements are not
necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for any future period or the entire fiscal year. Restricted Cash Restricted cash represents amounts held in certificates of deposit to support stand-by letters of credit used as security for third
party vendors. Short-term Investments The Company's investments are comprised of U.S. obligations, U.S. government debt agencies, corporate debt,
auction rate securities and bank issues. All short-term investments are classified as available-for-sale. Packet8 Service Revenue The Company defers revenue recognition of new subscriber revenue from its Packet8 service offerings until it deems that the
customer has accepted the service. New customers may terminate their service within thirty days of order placement and receive a full
refund of fees previously paid. As the Company has been providing its Packet8 service for a limited period of time, it has not developed
sufficient history to apply a return rate and reserve against new order revenue. Accordingly, the Company defers new subscriber
revenue for up to thirty days to ensure that the thirty day trial period has expired. Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) consensus No. 00-21, "Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple
Deliverables" requires that revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables be divided into separate units of accounting if the
deliverables in the arrangement meet specific criteria. In addition, arrangement consideration must be allocated among the separate
units of accounting based on their relative fair values, with certain limitations. The provisioning of the Packet8 service with the
accompanying desktop terminal or videophone adapter constitutes a revenue arrangement with multiple deliverables. In accordance
with the guidance of EITF No. 00-21, the Company allocates Packet8 revenues, including activation fees, among the desktop terminal
adapter or videophone and subscriber services. Subsequent to the subscriber's initial purchase of the service, revenues allocated to
the desktop terminal adapter or videophone are recognized as product revenues at the end of thirty days after order placement,
provided the customer does not cancel their Packet8 service. All other revenues are recognized when the related services are
provided. Deferred cost of goods sold represents the cost of products sold for which the end customer or distributor has a
right of return. The cost of the products sold is recognized contemporaneously with the recognition of revenue, when the subscriber
has accepted the service. Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation The Company accounts for employee stock-based compensation in accordance with Accounting Principles Board
Opinion No. 25, "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees" (APB Opinion No. 25) and related interpretations thereof. As required
under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation," the Company
provides pro forma disclosure of net loss and loss per share. If the Company had elected to recognize compensation costs based on
the fair value at the date of grant of the awards, consistent with the provisions of SFAS No. 123, net loss and related per share amounts
would have been as follows (in thousands, except per share amounts): In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 123(R), "Share-Based
Payment," requiring all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, to be recognized as
compensation expense in the consolidated financial statements based on their fair values. This standard includes two transition
methods. Upon adoption, the Company will be required to use either the modified prospective or the modified retrospective transition
method. Under the modified prospective method, awards that are granted, modified, or settled after the date of adoption should be
measured and accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R). Unvested equity-classified awards that were granted prior to the
effective date should continue to be accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 123 except that amounts must be recognized in the
statements of operations. Under the modified retrospective approach, the previously-reported amounts are restated (either to the
beginning of the year of adoption or for all periods presented) to reflect the SFAS No. 123 amounts in the statements of operations.
In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107
("SAB 107") which provides guidance regarding the application of SFAS No. 123(R). SAB 107 expresses views of the
staff regarding the interaction between SFAS No. 123(R) and certain SEC rules and regulations and provides the staff's
views regarding the valuation of share-based payment arrangements for public companies. In particular, SAB 107 provides guidance
related to share-based payment transactions with non-employees valuation methods (including assumptions such as expected volatility
and expected term), the accounting for certain redeemable financial instruments issued under share-based payment arrangements, the
classification of compensation expense, first-time adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) in an interim period, capitalization of
compensation cost related to share-based payment arrangements, the accounting for income tax effects of share-based payment
arrangements upon adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), the modification of employee share options prior to adoption of SFAS No.
123(R) and disclosures in Management's Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A") subsequent to adoption of SFAS
No. 123(R). On April 14, 2005, the SEC approved a rule that delays the effective date for SFAS No. 123(R) to
annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) on April 1, 2006 is expected to have a
material impact on the Company's consolidated results of operations. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this standard
and its transitional alternatives. In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, "Accounting Changes and Error Corrections: a
Replacement of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement No. 3" ("SFAS No. 154"). SFAS
No. 154 requires retrospective application for voluntary changes in accounting principle unless it is impracticable to do so or another
methodology is required by the standard. Retrospective application refers to the application of a different accounting principle to
previously issued financial statements as if that principle had always been used. SFAS No. 154's retrospective application requirement
replaces APB No. 20's ("Accounting Changes") requirement to recognize most voluntary changes in accounting principle by
including in net income (loss) of the period of the change the cumulative effect of changing to the new accounting principle. This
statement defines retrospective application as the application of a different accounting principle to prior accounting periods as if that
principle had always been used or as the adjustment of previously issued financial statements to reflect a change in the reporting entity.
SFAS No. 154 also redefines restatement as the revising of previously issued financial statements to reflect the correction of an error.
The requirements are effective for accounting changes made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005 and will only impact the
consolidated financial statements in periods in which a change in accounting principle is made. The Company does not expect
that the adoption of SFAS No. 154 in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 will have a material impact on its results of operations and financial
condition. In November 2005, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position ("FSP") FAS 115-1 and FAS 124-1,
"The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments ("FSP 115-1"), which
provides guidance on determining when investments in certain debt and equity securities are considered impaired, whether that
impairment is other-than-temporary, and on measuring such impairment loss. FSP 115-1 also includes accounting considerations
subsequent to the recognition of an other-than-temporary impairments. The Company expects to adopt FSP 115-1 effective for the
quarter beginning January 1, 2006, and the adoption is not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial
condition. 3. COMMON STOCK OFFERINGS AND WARRANTS In December 2005, the Company sold 7,142,858 shares of its common stock at $2.10 per share for aggregate
proceeds of approximately $15,000,000, before placement fees and other offering expenses. The purchasers also received five year
warrants to purchase 1,785,714 shares of 8x8 common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share. The shares issued in this
offering were issued under a shelf registration statement previously filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to the sale of up to $125,000,000 of 8x8 securities. The Company paid total cash fees of six percent of
the gross proceeds to the placement agents, and issued to the placement agents three year warrants to purchase 142,858 common
shares at $2.10 per share and 35,714 common shares at $3.00 per share. As a result of this offering, certain anti-dilution provisions
included in warrants issued to investors in common stock offerings completed during fiscal 2005 were triggered. Accordingly, the
Company modified a warrant to purchase 2,000,000 shares at an exercise price of $2.88 per share so that it is now exercisable for
2,071,818 shares at an exercise price of $2.79 per share. The Company also modified a warrant to purchase 1,498,538 shares at an
exercise price of $3.84 per share so that it is now exercisable for 1,587,806 shares at an exercise price of $3.61 per share. No other
terms of the warrants were affected. In connection with, and in consideration for, the execution of a marketing and distribution agreement with TJF Associates, LLC
("TJF") on December 10, 2004, the Company agreed to issue a warrant to TJF for the purchase of up to 4,500,000 shares of 8x8
common stock with vesting terms that were conditional upon TJF delivering 50,000 subscribers to the Packet8 service by December 31,
2005. The terms of the warrant provided that at any time prior to December 31, 2009, TJF or its transferees could exercise in whole or
in part a warrant to acquire up to 4,500,000 shares of 8x8 common stock, at a purchase price per share equal to $5.50. As no warrants
had vested by December 31, 2005, the warrant was automatically cancelled as of that date. 4. BALANCE SHEET DETAIL 5. NET LOSS PER SHARE Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss available to common stockholders (numerator) by the
weighted average number of vested, unrestricted common shares outstanding during the period (denominator). Due to net losses
incurred for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, basic and diluted shares outstanding for each of the
respective periods are the same. The following equity instruments were not included in the computations of net loss per share because
the effect on the calculations would be anti-dilutive (in thousands): 6. COMPREHENSIVE LOSS Comprehensive loss, as defined, includes all changes in equity (net assets) during a period from non-owner
sources. The difference between the Company's net loss and comprehensive loss is due primarily to unrealized gains and losses
on short-term investments classified as available-for-sale. Comprehensive loss for the three and nine months ended December 31,
2005 and 2004, was as follows (in thousands): 7. SEGMENT REPORTING SFAS No. 131, "Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information," establishes annual
and interim reporting standards for an enterprise's business segments and related disclosures about its products, services, geographic
areas and major customers. Under SFAS No. 131, the method for determining what information to report is based upon the way
management organizes the operating segments within the Company for making operating decisions and assessing financial
performance. The Company has determined that it has only one reportable segment. The following net revenues are presented by
groupings of similar products and services (in thousands): No customer represented greater than 10% of the Company's total revenues for the three or nine months ended
December 31, 2005 or 2004. The Company's revenue distribution by geographic region (based upon the destination of shipments) was
as follows: 8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Guarantees Indemnifications In the normal course of business, the Company indemnifies other parties, including customers, lessors and parties to other
transactions with the Company, with respect to certain matters. It is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount of the Company's exposure under these indemnification
agreements due to the limited history of prior indemnification claims and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular
agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under these agreements have not had a material impact on the Company's
operating results or financial position. Product Warranties The Company accrues for the estimated costs that may be incurred under its product warranties upon revenue
recognition. Changes in the Company's product warranty liability during the three and nine months ended December 31, 2005 were as
follows (in thousands): Standby letters of credit. The Company has standby letters of credit totaling $500,000, which were issued to guarantee certain contractual obligations and
are collateralized by cash deposits at the Company's primary bank. These letters of credit are recorded in the restricted cash and other
assets line items in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. Leases At December 31, 2005, future minimum annual lease payments under noncancelable operating leases were
as follows (in thousands): In April 2005, the Company entered into a series of noncancelable five year capital lease agreements for office
equipment bearing interest at various rates. At December 31, 2005, future minimum annual lease payments were as follows (in
thousands): Assets under capital lease at December 31, 2005 totaled $108,000 with accumulated depreciation of
$14,000. Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in various legal claims and litigation that have arisen in the normal course of its
operations. While the results of such claims and litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company currently believes that the
final outcome of such matters will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows. However, should the Company not prevail in any such litigation, it could have a materially adverse impact on the Company's
operating results, cash flows or financial position. Regulatory To date VoIP communication services have been largely unregulated in the United States. Many regulatory
actions are underway or are being contemplated by federal and state authorities, including the Federal Communications Commission,
or FCC, and state regulatory agencies. To date, the FCC has treated VoIP service providers as information service providers, though
the FCC has avoided specifically ruling on this categorization. Information service providers are currently exempt from federal and state
regulations governing common carriers, including the obligation to pay access charges and contribute to the universal service fund. The
FCC is currently examining the status of VoIP service providers and the services they provide. The FCC initiated a notice of proposed
rule-making (NPRM) in early 2004 to gather public comment on the appropriate regulatory environment for IP telephony. In November
2004, the FCC ruled that the VoIP service of a competitor and "similar" services are jurisdictionally interstate and not subject to state
certification, tariffing and other legacy telecommunication carrier regulations. The FCC ruling has been appealed by several states and
the outcome of these appeals cannot be determined at this time. If the FCC or an appeals court were to determine that VoIP service
providers, or the services they provide, are subject to FCC regulation, including the payment of access charges and contribution to the
universal service funds, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and operating results. On May 19, 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an Order and NPRM that requires VoIP providers that
interconnect with the public switched telephone network ("PSTN"), or interconnected VoIP providers, to provide emergency
911 ("E911") service. On June 3, 2005, the FCC released the text of the First Report and Order and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the VoIP E911 proceeding (the "VoIP E911 Order"). As a result of the VoIP E911 Order,
interconnected VoIP providers are required to offer the E911 emergency calling capabilities present on traditional switched and cellular
phone lines. All interconnected VoIP providers must deliver 911 calls to the appropriate local public safety answering point, or PSAP,
through the PSTN's legacy wireline selective router, which is used to deliver E911 calls, along with call back number and location,
where the PSAP is able to receive that information. E911 must be included in the basic service offering; it cannot be an optional or extra
feature. The PSAP delivery obligation, along with call back number and location information must be provided regardless of whether
the VoIP service is "fixed" or "nomadic." User registration of location is permissible initially, although the FCC is committed to an
advanced form of E911 that will determine user location without user intervention, one of the topics of the further NPRM. The VoIP
E911 Order mandates that existing and prospective customers must be notified, prominently and in plain language, of the capabilities
and limitations of VoIP service with respect to emergency calling, and interconnected VoIP providers must obtain and maintain
affirmative acknowledgement from each customer that the customer has read and understood the notice of limitations and
distribute warning labels or stickers alerting consumers and other potential users of the limitations of VoIP E911 service to each
new subscriber prior to the initiation of service. In addition, an interconnected VoIP provider must make it possible for customers to
update their address (i.e., change their registered location) via at least one option that requires no equipment other than that needed to
access the VoIP service. On July 26, 2005 the FCC issued guidance to all interconnected VoIP providers regarding the July 29, 2005
notification deadline. In this guidance, the FCC determined that it would not initiate enforcement action until August 30, 2005, against
any provider of interconnected VoIP service regarding the requirement that it obtain affirmative acknowledgement by every existing
subscriber on the condition that the provider file a detailed report with the Commission by August 10, 2005, containing a variety of
detailed descriptions. The FCC's notice further stated that it expected interconnected VoIP providers who had not received subscriber
acknowledgements from one hundred percent of existing subscribers by August 29, 2005 to disconnect, no later than August 30, 2005,
all subscribers from whom it had not received such acknowledgement. To date, the Company has filed the status reports requested by
the FCC, and suspended service of an insignificant number of subscribers on August 30, 2005. The Company also filed a VoIP E911
compliance report , as required by the FCC, on November 28, 2005. As was detailed in the compliance report, the Company currently
cannot offer E911 services that route directly to a local PSAP to all of its customers, as the direct interconnection to local PSAPs is not
available in certain rate centers from which telephone numbers are provisioned for the Packet8 service. The Company is addressing
this issue with its telecommunication interconnection partners. On November 28, 2005, the Company began routing certain nomadic
911 calls and 911 calls that cannot be directly connected to a local PSAP, along with location information, to a national emergency call
center. The emergency dispatchers in this national call center utilize the location information provided to route the call to the correct
PSAP or first responder, The FCC may determine that the Company's nomadic E911 solution does not satisfy the requirements of the
VoIP E911 order because, in some instances, the Company will not be able to connect Packet8 subscribers directly to a PSAP In this
case, the FCC could require the Company to disconnect a significant number of subscribers. The effect of such disconnections or any
enforcement action initiated by the FCC or other agency or task force against the Company could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. On January 1, 2006, the Company began charging its customers a
monthly fee of $1.99 for E911 services on all Packet8 phone numbers capable of placing outbound calls in order to recoup some of the
expenses associated with providing nomadic E911 service. The impact of this price increase on our customers or the Company's
inability to recoup its costs or liabilities in providing E911 services or other factors could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. On August 5, 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an order responsive to a joint petition filed by the
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration asking the FCC to declare that
broadband Internet access services and VoIP services be covered by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or
CALEA. The Order concludes that CALEA applies to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of
interconnected VoIP service and requires these providers to be in full compliance within eighteen months of September 23, 2005. The
FCC also stated that, in the coming months, it will release another order that will address separate questions regarding the assistance
capabilities required of the providers covered by the August 5, 2005 order. The FCC stated that the subsequent order will include other
important issues under CALEA, such as compliance extensions and exemptions, cost recovery, identification of future services and
entities subject to CALEA, and enforcement. Because the FCC has not yet released the implementation details in the second order, it
is impossible for the Company to quantify the effects that this order, or other future orders, will have, but failure of the Company to
achieve compliance with any future CALEA orders or any enforcement action initiated by the FCC or other agency or task force against
the Company could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Several state regulatory authorities have contacted the Company regarding its Packet8 service. These inquiries
have ranged from notification that the Packet8 service should be subject to local regulation, certification and fees to broad inquiries into
the nature of the Packet8 services provided. The Company responds to the various state authorities as inquiries are received. Based
on advice of counsel, the Company disputes the assertion, among others, that the Packet8 service should be subject to state
regulation. While the Company does not believe that exposure to material amounts of fees or penalties exists, if 8x8 is subject to an
enforcement action, the Company may become subject to liabilities and may incur expenses that adversely affect its financial position,
results of operations and cash flows. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) instituted its own investigation in early 2004 to
determine how it will classify and treat VoIP service providers like Packet8. On April 7, 2005, the CPUC instituted a rulemaking to
assess and revise the regulation of all telecommunications utilities in California except for small incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILECs). The primary goal of this proceeding is to develop a uniform regulatory framework for all telecommunications utilities, except
small ILECs, to the extent that it is feasible and in the public interest to do so. While not specifically directed at VoIP, it is unclear at this
time what impact this new rulemaking will have on the CPUCs classification or treatment of VoIP services. In late 2004 and early 2005,
the Company received notices from multiple municipalities in California that the Packet8 service is subject to utility user taxes, as
defined in the respective municipal codes. The notices require that the Company begin collecting and remitting utility user taxes no
later than January 1, 2005. The Company has responded to and disputed the municipalities' assertions. The effect of potential future VoIP telephony laws and regulations on the Company's operations, including, but
not limited to, Packet8, cannot be determined. ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains forward-looking statements within the
meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Any statements contained herein that are not
statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. For example, words such as "may,"
"will," "should," "estimates," "predicts," "potential," "continue,"
"strategy," "believes," "anticipates," "plans," "expects," "intends,"
and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on these
forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of a
number of factors, including our good faith assumptions being incorrect, our business expenses being greater than anticipated due to
competitive factors or unanticipated development or sales costs; revenues not resulting in the manner anticipated or our failure to
generate customer or investor interest. The forward-looking statements may also be impacted by the additional risks faced by us as
described in this Report, including those set forth under the section entitled "Factors that May Affect Future Results." All forward-looking
statements included in this Report are based on information available to us on the date hereof, and we assume no obligation to update
any such forward-looking statements. BUSINESS OVERVIEW We develop and market telecommunication technology for Internet protocol, or IP, telephony and video
applications. We offer the Packet8 broadband voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, and video communications service, Packet8 Virtual
Office service and videophone equipment and services (collectively, Packet8). We shipped our first VoIP product in 1998, launched our
Packet8 service in November 2002, and launched the Packet8 Virtual Office business service offering in March 2004. As of December
31, 2005, we had approximately 113,000 Packet8 subscriber lines in service as compared to 93,000 lines at September 30, 2005 and
57,000 lines at March 31, 2005. Substantially all of our revenues are generated from the sale, license and provisioning of VoIP
products, services and technology. On December 19, 2005, we sold 7,142,858 shares of our common stock at $2.10 per share for aggregate proceeds of approximately
$15,000,000, before placement fees and other offering expenses. The purchasers also received five year warrants to purchase shares
of 8x8 common stock at an exercise price of $3.00 per share. The shares issued in this offering were issued under a shelf registration
statement previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to up to $125,000,000 of our securities. We paid total
cash fees of six percent of the gross proceeds to the placement agents, and issued three year warrants to purchase 142,858 common
shares at $2.10 per share and 35,714 common shares at $3.00 per share. Our fiscal year ends on March 31 of each calendar year. Each reference to a fiscal year in this Report refers to the
fiscal year ending March 31 of the calendar year indicated (for example, fiscal 2006 refers to the fiscal year ending March 31,
2006). CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES & ESTIMATES The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our
consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of
assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of assets and liabilities. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our critical
accounting policies and estimates. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to
be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets
and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different
assumptions or conditions. Our critical accounting policies and estimates are discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2005. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
("SFAS") No. 123(R), "Share-Based Payment," requiring all share-based payments to employees, including
grants of employee stock options, to be recognized as compensation expense in the consolidated financial statements based on their
fair values. This standard includes two transition methods. Upon adoption, we will be required to use either the modified prospective or
the modified retrospective transition method. Under the modified prospective method, awards that are granted, modified, or settled after
the date of adoption should be measured and accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R). Unvested equity-classified awards
that were granted prior to the effective date should continue to be accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 123 except that amounts
must be recognized in the statements of operations. Under the modified retrospective approach, the previously-reported amounts are
restated (either to the beginning of the year of adoption or for all periods presented) to reflect the SFAS No. 123 amounts in the
statements of operations. In March 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107
(SAB 107) which provides guidance regarding the application of SFAS 123(R). SAB 107 expresses views of the SEC regarding
the interaction between SFAS No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, and certain SEC rules and regulations and provides the
SEC's views regarding the valuation of share-based payment arrangements for public companies. In particular, SAB 107 provides
guidance related to share-based payment transactions with non-employees, the transition from nonpublic to public entity status,
valuation methods (including assumptions such as expected volatility and expected term), the accounting for certain redeemable
financial instruments issued under share-based payment arrangements, the classification of compensation expense, non-GAAP
financial measures, first-time adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) in an interim period, capitalization of compensation cost related
to share-based payment arrangements, the accounting for income tax effects of share-based payment arrangements upon adoption of
SFAS No. 123(R), the modification of employee share options prior to adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) and disclosures in
Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) subsequent to adoption of SFAS 123(R). On April 14, 2005, the SEC approved a new rule that delays the effective date for SFAS No. 123(R) to annual periods
beginning after June 15, 2005. Our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) on April 1, 2006 is expected to have a material impact on
our consolidated results of operations. We are currently evaluating the impact of this standard and its transitional alternatives. In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, "Accounting Changes and Error Corrections: a Replacement of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement No. 3." SFAS No. 154 requires retrospective application for voluntary
changes in accounting principle unless it is impracticable to do so or another methodology is required by the standard. Retrospective
application refers to the application of a different accounting principle to previously issued financial statements as if that principle had
always been used. SFAS No. 154's retrospective application requirement replaces APB No 20's ("Accounting Changes")
requirement to recognize most voluntary changes in accounting principle by including in net income (loss) of the period of the change
the cumulative effect of changing to the new accounting principle. This Statement defines retrospective application as the application of
a different accounting principle to prior accounting periods as if that principle had always been used or as the adjustment of previously
issued financial statements to reflect a change in the reporting entity. SFAS No. 154 also redefines restatement as the revising of
previously issued financial statements to reflect the correction of an error. The requirements are effective for accounting changes made
in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005 and will only impact the consolidated financial statements in periods in which a
change in accounting principle is made. We do not expect that the adoption of SFAS No. 154 in the first quarter of fiscal 2007
will have a material impact on our results of operations and financial condition. In November 2005, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP) FAS 115-1 and FAS 124-1, The Meaning of
Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments (FSP 115-1), which provides guidance on determining
when investments in certain debt and equity securities are considered impaired, whether that impairment is other-than-temporary, and
on measuring such impairment loss. FSP 115-1 also includes accounting considerations subsequent to the recognition of an
other-than-temporary impairment. We expect to adopt FSP 115-1 effective with the quarter beginning January 1, 2006, and the adoption is
not expected to have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition. RESULTS OF OPERATIONS The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements
and the notes thereto. Revenues License and service revenues consist primarily of revenues attributable to our Packet8 service and technology licenses and related
maintenance revenues related to our VoIP and video intellectual property, as well as any royalties earned under such licenses. We
expect that Packet8 service revenues will continue to comprise nearly all of license and service revenues on a going forward basis.
The increase for the third quarter of fiscal 2006 was primarily due to a $4.5 million increase in revenues attributable to our Packet8
service due to the growth in the subscriber base. As of December 31, 2005, we had 113,000 Packet8 subscriber lines in service as
compared to 40,000 lines at December 31, 2004. The increase in Packet8 service revenues was partially offset by a $47,000 decrease
in license and maintenance revenues associated with our VoIP semiconductor telephony technology. The increase for the nine months ended December 31, 2005 was primarily due to a $12.2 million increase in revenues attributable
to our Packet8 service due to the growth in the subscriber base. The increase in Packet8 service revenues was partially offset by a
$369,000 decrease in license and maintenance revenues associated with our VoIP semiconductor telephony technology. We defer revenue recognition of new Packet8 subscriber revenue until we deem that the customer has accepted the service. As
we have been providing our Packet8 service for a limited period of time, we have not developed sufficient history to apply a return rate
and reserve against new order revenue. During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, we changed our terms of service such that customers
may terminate their service and receive a full refund of fees previously paid within thirty days of order placement rather than within thirty
days of service activation. As a result of the change in terms of service, we recognized an additional $100,000 of new order revenue
during the first quarter of fiscal 2005. Product revenues consist of revenues from sales of VoIP terminal adapters and videophones, primarily attributable to our Packet8
service, as well as sales of VoIP semiconductor products. The increase for the third quarter of fiscal 2006 was primarily attributable to
a $1.2 million increase for product revenues attributable to the Packet8 service due to the growth in the subscriber base. This
increase was partially offset by a $126,000 decrease in sales of VoIP semiconductors. We completed our last shipment of VoIP
semiconductor products during the first quarter of fiscal 2006, and do not expect to record any future revenues from sales of
semiconductor products. The increase for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 as compared to the comparable period in the prior year was
primarily attributable to a $2.6 million increase for product revenues attributable to the Packet8 service due to the growth in the
subscriber base. This increase was partially offset by a $410,000 decrease in sales of VoIP semiconductors. No customer represented greater than 10% of our total revenues for the three or nine months ended December
31, 2005 or 2004. Our revenue distribution by geographic region (based upon the destination of shipments) was as follows: Cost of License and Service Revenues The cost of license and service revenues consists of costs primarily associated with network operations and
related personnel, telephony origination and termination services provided by third party carriers and technology license and royalty
expenses. The increase in cost of license and service revenues for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2005 as
compared to the comparable periods in the prior year was attributable to a $1.8 million and $4.4 million increase in Packet8 network
operations and third party carrier service charges due to the year over year growth in the Packet8 subscriber base, respectively. The increase in cost of license and service revenues for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 was attributable to a
$4.7 million increase in Packet8 network operations and third party carrier service charges due to the year over year growth in the
Packet8 subscriber base. Cost of Product Revenues The cost of product revenues consists of costs associated with systems, components, system and
semiconductor manufacturing, assembly and testing performed by third-party vendors, estimated warranty obligations and direct and
indirect costs associated with product purchasing, scheduling, quality assurance, shipping and handling. The increase in the cost of
product revenues for the third quarter of fiscal 2006 as compared to the prior year quarter was primarily due to a $2.4 million increase
attributable to equipment provided to Packet8 subscribers upon activation of their service and related manufacturing, personnel,
handling, overhead and shipping costs. The increase included over $1.0 million attributable to an increase in cost of goods sold for
videophone sales recognized during the third quarter. The increase in Packet8 cost of product revenues was partially offset by a
$74,000 decrease in cost of revenues for semiconductor products due to the decrease in sales of such products during the third quarter
of fiscal 2006 due to the end of life of these products initiated in fiscal 2004. The increase in the cost of product revenues for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 as compared to the
comparable period in the prior year was primarily due to an approximately $5.5 million increase attributable to equipment provided to
Packet8 subscribers upon activation of their service and related manufacturing, personnel, handling, overhead and shipping costs. The
increase in Packet8 cost of product revenues was partially offset by a $384,000 decrease in cost of revenues for semiconductor
products due to the decrease in sales of such products during the third quarter of fiscal 2006 due to the end of life of these products
initiated in fiscal 2004. We generally do not separately charge Packet8 subscribers for the terminal adapters used to provide our
service when they subscribe on our website. We have also offered incentives to customers who purchase terminal adapters in our
retail channels to offset the cost of the equipment purchased from a retailer, and generally these incentives are recorded as reductions
of revenue. In accordance with FASB Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 00-21, a portion of Packet8 services revenues is
allocated to product revenues, but these revenues are less than the cost of the terminal adapters at the time of purchase. Accordingly,
cost of product revenues exceeds product revenues, and we expect this trend to continue. Research and Development Expenses Research and development expenses consist primarily of personnel, system prototype, software and equipment
costs necessary for us to conduct our engineering and development efforts. The increase in research and development expenses for
the third quarter of fiscal 2006 as compared to the comparable period in the prior year was primarily attributable to a $626,000 increase
in personnel costs due to additional employee and contractor headcount to support the growth of our Packet8 service and development
of new products, features and enhancements. The increase in research and development expenses for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 as compared to the
comparable period in the prior year was primarily attributable to a $2 million increase in personnel costs due to additional employee and
contractor headcount to support the growth of our Packet8 service and development of new products, features and enhancements. Selling, General and Administrative Expenses Selling, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel and related overhead costs for
sales, marketing, customer support, finance, human resources and general management. Such costs also include sales commissions,
trade show, advertising and other marketing and promotional expenses. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses
for the third quarter of fiscal 2006 as compared to the comparable period in the prior year was primarily attributable to a $717,000
increase in personnel costs due to additional employee and contractor headcount to support the growth of our Packet8 service,
primarily for the increase in staffing customer service positions, a $878,000 increase in sales agent and retailer commissions due to the
expansion of our distribution channels for our Packet8 service, and a $265,000 increase in credit card processing fees. The increase in
selling, general and administrative expenses was partially offset by a $177,000 decrease in legal expenses. The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 as
compared to the comparable period in the prior year was primarily attributable to a $3.2 million increase in personnel costs due to
additional employee and contractor headcount to support the growth of our Packet8 service, primarily for the increase in staffing
customer service positions, a $820,000 increase in advertising, public relations and other marketing and promotional expenses, a $2.4
million increase in sales agent and retailer commissions due to the expansion of our distribution channels for our Packet8 service and a
$629,000 increase in credit card processing fees. Other Income, Net The decrease in other income for the third quarter of fiscal 2006 as compared to the prior year was primarily
attributable to a reduction in investment income. The increase in other income for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 as compared to the prior year was primarily
attributable to an increase in interest income attributable to higher average cash balances invested and higher interest rates earned on
such balances, partially offset by the fiscal 2005 receipt of $181,000 of escrow funds related to a cost-basis common stock investment
in an entity that was acquired in 1999 by a third party. Provision for Income Taxes There were no tax provisions recorded during the three or nine month periods ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, due to year to
date net losses incurred. In the quarter ended June 30, 2004, we recorded approximately $20,000 of income tax benefit attributable to
an income tax refund received by one of our foreign subsidiaries. No tax provisions have been recorded for any period presented, as
we believe that, based on the history of our operating losses and other factors, the weight of available evidence indicates that it is more
likely than not that we will not be able to realize the benefit of our net operating losses. Accordingly, a full valuation reserve has been
recorded against our net deferred tax assets. Liquidity and Capital Resources At December 31, 2005, we had $16.8 million of cash and cash equivalents, $0.3 million in restricted cash, and $10.7 million
in investments in marketable securities for a combined total of $27.8 million. In comparison, at March 31, 2005, we had $22.5
million of cash and cash equivalents, $0.3 million in restricted cash, and $9 million in investments in marketable securities for a
combined total of $31.8 million. Our cash and cash equivalents balance decreased by $5.7 million and the combined balance
decreased by $4.0 million during the first nine months of fiscal 2006. The decrease in the combined balance was primarily attributable
to $16.9 million used to fund operations, as discussed below. Cash used in operations of approximately $17.0 million for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 was primarily attributable to the net
loss of $17.5 million, adjusted for $0.5 million of depreciation and amortization expense. The favorable changes in operating assets
and liabilities were primarily attributable to a $0.4 million increase in accounts payable, a $0.8 million decrease in deferred cost of
goods sold, and a $0.6 million decrease in deferred revenue. These favorable changes were offset by a $1.6 million increase in
inventory. Cash used in operations of approximately $12.2 million for the first nine months of fiscal 2005 was primarily
attributable to the net loss of $12.2 million and net cash used in changes in operating assets and liabilities of $0.2 million, primarily for
inventory purchases, adjusted for $0.1 million of depreciation and amortization. Our negative operating cash flows primarily reflect our
net losses resulting from the same factors affecting our revenues and expenses as described above. Cash used in investing activities of $2.9 million for the nine months ended December 31, 2005 was primarily attributable to $1.2
million of purchases of fixed assets and purchases of short term investments of $7.1 million. These cash outflows were partially offset
by proceeds of $5.4 million received from the sale and maturity of short term investments. Cash used in investing activities for the nine
months ended December 31, 2004 was primarily attributable to $1.4 million of purchases of fixed assets and purchases of investments
of $0.6 million, partially offset by a $0.6 million decrease in cash classified as restricted cash due to the termination of letters of
credit. Cash provided by financing activities of approximately $14.2 million for the first nine months of fiscal 2006 consisted primarily of
$14 million of net proceeds received from a common stock offering completed in December 2005 and $0.2 million of proceeds from the
issuance of common stock under our employee stock plans. Cash provided by financing activities during the first nine months of fiscal
2005 consisted primarily of $11.1 million of net proceeds received from a common stock offering completed in June 2004 and
approximately $12 million of proceeds received on September 30, 2004 from a common stock offering that closed on October 1, 2004. At December 31, 2005, we had open purchase orders of approximately $0.5 million, primarily related to inventory purchases from
our contract manufacturers. These purchase commitments are reflected in our consolidated financial statements once
goods or services have been received or at such time when we are obligated to make payments related to these goods or
services. At December 31, 2005, future minimum annual lease payments under noncancelable operating leases were as
follows (in thousands): We had no off-balance sheet arrangements at December 31, 2005. In April 2005, the Company entered into a series of noncancelable five year capital lease agreements for office
equipment bearing interest at various rates. At December 31, 2005, future minimum annual lease payments were as follows (in
thousands): Based upon our current expectations, we believe that our current cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, together
with cash generated from operations, are sufficient to satisfy our expected working capital and capital expenditure requirements for at
least the next twelve months. Although we believe that our current cash and cash equivalents will satisfy our expected working capital and
capital expenditure requirements through at least the next twelve months, our business may change in ways we do not currently
anticipate, which could require us to raise additional funds to support our operations earlier than otherwise expected. Unless we
achieve and maintain profitability, we will need to raise additional capital to support our business. We may not be able to obtain
additional financing as needed on acceptable terms, or at all, which may require us to reduce our operating costs and other
expenditures by making reductions in personnel and capital expenditures. Alternatively, or in addition to such potential measures, we
may elect to implement other cost reduction actions as we may determine are necessary and in our best interests. Any such actions
undertaken might limit our opportunities to realize plans for revenue growth and we might not be able to reduce our costs in amounts
sufficient to achieve break-even or profitable operations. FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT FUTURE RESULTS This report contains forward-looking statements within the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated or projected in
these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including those set forth in the following cautionary statements and
elsewhere in this report. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties
not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations. If any of the following risks
were to occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations would likely suffer. In that event, the trading price of our
common stock would decline. Any forward-looking statements should be considered in light of the factors discussed below. We have a history of losses and we are uncertain as to our future profitability. We recorded an operating loss of $17.5 million for the nine months ended December 31,
2005, and we ended the period with an accumulated deficit of $188 million. In addition, we recorded operating losses of $20 million and
$4 million for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. We expect that we will continue to incur operating
losses for the foreseeable future, and such losses may be substantial. We will need to generate significant revenue growth to achieve
an operating profit. Given our history of fluctuating revenues and operating losses, we cannot be certain that we will be able to achieve
profitability on either a quarterly or annual basis in the future. Our stock price has been highly volatile. The market price of the shares of our common stock has been and is likely to be highly volatile. It
may be significantly affected by factors such as: The stock market has from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that
have particularly affected the market prices for the common stocks of technology companies and that have often been unrelated to the
operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the market price of our common
stock. In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company's securities, securities class action litigation has often
been initiated against the issuing company. If our stock price is volatile, we may also be subject to such litigation. Such litigation could
result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's attention and resources, which would disrupt business and could cause a
decline in our operating results. Any settlement or adverse determination in such litigation would also subject us to significant
liability. The growth of our business and our potential for future profitability depends on the growth of
Packet8 revenue. We devote substantially all of our resources to the promotion, distribution and development of our
Packet8 service. As such, our future growth and future profitability is dependent on revenue from our Packet8 service, as opposed to
revenue from our semiconductor business, which has historically accounted for a substantial portion of the Company's consolidated
revenues. Semiconductor and related software revenues represented approximately 83% and 88%, respectively,
of the Company's consolidated revenues for fiscal 2004 and 2003. However, these revenues were not sufficient to profitably operate
our semiconductor business. Therefore, we significantly reduced the scope of these operations. During the quarter ended June 30,
2003, we completed the end-of-life of our legacy videoconferencing semiconductor products. In November 2003, we sold the VIP1
video semiconductor development effort to Leadtek Research, Inc. (Leadtek). Under the terms of the transaction, Leadtek acquired the
VIP1 development activities, key engineers, software tools and equipment. Revenues attributable to this development effort, prior to the
aforementioned transaction, were $0 and $1.1 million during the fiscal years ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively,
representing approximately 0% and 12% of revenues of our semiconductor business and 0% and 10.5% of 8x8's consolidated
revenues for such periods. As a result of the transfer of this development effort to Leadtek, this development revenue ceased. In
January 2004, we initiated an end-of-life program for our VoIP telephony semiconductor products, including the Audacity T2 and T2U
products. The semiconductor business no longer generates significant revenues. Revenues from the hosted iPBX solutions business represented approximately 3% and 8% of the
Company's consolidated revenues for fiscal 2004 and 2003, respectively. In July 2003, we sold our European subsidiary, Centile
Europe S.A., and licensed, on a non-exclusive basis, our iPBX technology to the purchaser. In March 2004, we announced the Packet8
Virtual Office service, which includes technologies previously offered as part of the hosted iPBX solutions business. We have been selling our Packet8 service for a limited period and there is no guarantee that
Packet8 will gain broad market acceptance. We have been selling our Packet8 service since November 2002 To date, we have not generated
adequate revenue from the sale of our voice over IP, or VoIP, telephony products and services, including our Packet8 service, to
achieve profitability. If we are not able to generate higher revenues selling into the VoIP telephony market, our business and operating
results would be seriously harmed. If we are not able to retain a significant percentage of our current and future Packet8 customers on
an ongoing basis, our business and operating results would be seriously harmed. The success of our Packet8 service is dependent on the growth and public acceptance of VoIP
telephony. The success of our Packet8 voice and video communications service is dependent upon future
demand for VoIP telephony systems and services. In order for the IP telephony market to continue to grow, several things need to
occur. Telephone and cable service providers must continue to invest in the deployment of high speed broadband networks to
residential and business customers. VoIP networks must improve quality of service for real-time communications, managing effects
such as packet jitter, packet loss, and unreliable bandwidth, so that toll-quality service can be provided. VoIP telephony equipment and
services must achieve a similar level of reliability that users of the public switched telephone network have come to expect from their
telephone service. VoIP telephony service providers must offer cost and feature benefits to their customers that are sufficient to cause
the customers to switch away from traditional telephony service providers. Furthermore, end users in markets serviced by recently
deregulated telecommunications providers are not familiar with obtaining services from competitors of these providers and may be
reluctant to use new providers, such as us. We will need to devote substantial resources to educate customers and end users about the
benefits of VoIP telephony solutions in general and our services in particular. If any or all of these factors fail to occur, our business may
decline. Our future operating results may not follow past or expected trends due to many factors and any
of these could cause our stock price to fall. Our historical operating results have fluctuated significantly and will likely continue to fluctuate in
the future, and a decline in our operating results could cause our stock price to fall. On an annual and a quarterly basis, there are a
number of factors that may affect our operating results, many of which are outside our control. These include, but are not limited to: Given the significant price competition in the markets for our products, we are at a significant
disadvantage compared to our competitors, many of whom have substantially greater resources, and therefore may be better able to
withstand an extended period of downward pricing pressure. The adverse impact of a shortfall in our revenues may be magnified by our
inability to adjust spending to compensate for such shortfall. Announcements by our competitors or us of new products and
technologies could cause customers to defer purchases of our existing products, which would also have a material adverse effect on
our business and operating results. Due to these and other factors, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our results of
operations are not meaningful and should not be relied upon as indicators of our future performance. It is possible that in some future
periods our results of operations may be below the expectations of public market analysts and investors. If this were to occur, the price
of our common stock would likely decline significantly. The VoIP telephony market is subject to rapid technological change and we depend on new
product and service introductions in order to maintain and grow our business. VoIP telephony is an emerging market that is characterized by rapid changes in customer
requirements, frequent introductions of new and enhanced products, and continuing and rapid technological advancement. To compete
successfully in this emerging market, we must continue to design, develop, manufacture, and sell new and enhanced VoIP telephony
software products and services that provide increasingly higher levels of performance and reliability at lower cost. These new and
enhanced products must take advantage of technological advancements and changes, and respond to new customer requirements.
Our success in designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling such products and services will depend on a variety of factors,
including: Additionally, we may also be required to collaborate with third parties to develop our products and
may not be able to do so on a timely and cost-effective basis, if at all. We have in the past experienced delays in the development of
new products and the enhancement of existing products, and such delays will likely occur in the future. If we are unable, due to
resource constraints or technological or other reasons, to develop and introduce new or enhanced products in a timely manner, if such
new or enhanced products do not achieve sufficient market acceptance, or if such new product introductions decrease demand for
existing products, our operating results would decline and our business would not grow. Decreasing telecommunications rates may diminish or eliminate our competitive pricing
advantage. Decreasing telecommunications rates may diminish or eliminate the competitive pricing
advantage of our services. International and domestic telecommunications rates have decreased significantly over the last few years in
most of the markets in which we operate, and we anticipate that rates will continue to be reduced in all of the markets in which we do
business or expect to do business. Users who select our services to take advantage of the current pricing differential between
traditional telecommunications rates and our rates may switch to traditional telecommunications carriers as such pricing differentials
diminish or disappear, and we will be unable to use such pricing differentials to attract new customers in the future. In addition, our
ability to market our services to other service providers depends upon the existence of spreads between the rates offered by us and the
rates offered by traditional telecommunications carriers, as well as a spread between the retail and wholesale rates charged by the
carriers from which we obtain wholesale services. Continued rate decreases will require us to lower our rates to remain competitive and
will reduce or possibly eliminate any gross profit from our services. If telecommunications rates continue to decline, we may lose
subscribers for our services. We are a small company with limited resources compared to some of our current and potential
competitors and we may not be able to compete effectively and increase market share. Most of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, significantly
greater resources and name recognition and a larger base of customers than we have. As a result, these competitors may have greater
credibility with our existing and potential customers. They also may be able to adopt more aggressive pricing policies and devote
greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their products than we can to ours. Our competitors may also offer
bundled service arrangements offering a more complete product despite the technical merits or advantages of our products. These
competitors include traditional telephone service providers, such as AT&T, SBC and Verizon, cable television companies, such as
Cablevision, Cox and Time Warner, and other VoIP service providers such as Skype and Vonage. Competition could decrease our
prices, reduce our sales, lower our gross profits or decrease our market share. Our success depends on third parties in our distribution channels. We currently sell our products direct to consumers and through resellers, and are focusing
efforts on diversifying and increasing our distribution channels. Our future revenue growth will depend in large part on sales of our
products through reseller and other distribution relationships. We may not be successful in developing additional distribution
relationships. Agreements with distribution partners generally provide for one-time and recurring commissions based on our list prices,
and do not require minimum purchases or restrict development or distribution of competitive products. Therefore, entities that distribute
our products may compete with us. In addition, distributors and resellers may not dedicate sufficient resources or give sufficient priority
to selling our products. Our failure to develop new distribution channels, the loss of a distribution relationship or a decline in the efforts
of a material reseller or distributor could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
We need to retain key personnel to support our products and ongoing operations. The development and marketing of our VoIP products will continue to place a significant strain
on our limited personnel, management, and other resources. Our future success depends upon the continued services of our executive
officers and other key employees who have critical industry experience and relationships that we rely on to implement our business
plan. None of our officers or key employees are bound by employment agreements for any specific term. The loss of the services of any
of our officers or key employees could delay the development and introduction of, and negatively impact our ability to sell our products
which could adversely affect our financial results and impair our growth. We currently do not maintain key person life insurance policies
on any of our employees. We depend on contract manufacturers to manufacture substantially all of our products, and any
delay or interruption in manufacturing by these contract manufacturers would result in delayed or reduced shipments to our customers
and may harm our business. We do not have long-term purchase agreements with our contract manufacturers. There can be
no assurance that our contract manufacturers will be able or willing to reliably manufacture our products, in volumes, on a cost-effective
basis or in a timely manner. For our videophones, cordless handsets and terminal adaptors that are used with our Packet8 service, we
rely on the availability of certain semiconductor products. These devices are also sourced solely from certain overseas contract
manufacturers and partners, and are currently not available from any other manufacturer. Any of these factors could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We rely on third party network service providers to originate and terminate substantially all of our
public switched telephone network calls. Our Packet8 service depends on the availability of third party network service providers that
provide telephone numbers and public switched telephone network (PSTN) call termination and origination services for our customers.
Many of these network service providers have been affected by the downturn in the telecommunications industry and may be forced to
terminate the services that we depend on. The time to interface our technology to another network service provider, if available, and
qualify this new service could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition. While we believe that relations with our current service providers are good and we have contracts in
place, there can be no assurance that these service providers will be able or willing to supply cost-effective services to us in the future
or that we will be successful in signing up alternative or additional providers. While we believe that we could replace our current
providers, if necessary, our ability to provide service to our subscribers would be impacted during this timeframe, and this could have an
adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. The loss of access to, or requirement to change, the
telephone numbers we provide to our customers could have a material adverse effect on our business. We may not be able to manage our inventory levels effectively, which may lead to inventory
obsolescence that would force us to incur inventory write-downs. Our products have lead times of up to several months, and are built to forecasts that are
necessarily imprecise. Because of our practice of building our products to necessarily imprecise forecasts, it is likely that, from time to
time, we will have either excess or insufficient product inventory. Excess inventory levels would subject us to the risk of inventory
obsolescence, while insufficient levels of inventory may negatively affect relations with customers. For instance, our customers rely
upon our ability to meet committed delivery dates, and any disruption in the supply of our products could result in legal action from our
customers, loss of customers or harm to our ability to attract new customers. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect
on our business, operating results or financial condition. If our products do not interoperate with our customers' networks, orders for our products will be
delayed or canceled and substantial product returns could occur, which could harm our business. Many of the potential customers for our Packet8 service have requested that our products and
services be designed to interoperate with their existing networks, each of which may have different specifications and use multiple
standards. Our customers' networks may contain multiple generations of products from different vendors that have been added over
time as their networks have grown and evolved. Our products must interoperate with these products as well as with future products in
order to meet our customers' requirements. In some cases, we may be required to modify our product designs to achieve a sale, which
may result in a longer sales cycle, increased research and development expense, and reduced operating margins. If our products do
not interoperate with existing equipment or software in our customers' networks, installations could be delayed, orders for our products
could be canceled or our products could be returned. In addition, contractual obligations may require us to continue to provide services
that interoperate whether cost effective or in our interests. Any of these factors could harm our business, financial condition or results
of operations. We may have difficulty identifying the source of the problem when there is a problem in a
network. Our Packet8 service must successfully integrate with products from other vendors, such as
gateways to traditional telephone systems. As a result, when problems occur in a network, it may be difficult to identify the source of the
problem. The occurrence of hardware and software errors, whether caused by our Packet8 service or another vendor's products, may
result in the delay or loss of market acceptance of our products and any necessary revisions may force us to incur significant expenses.
The occurrence of some of these types of problems may seriously harm our business, financial condition or results of operations. Intense competition in the markets in which we compete could prevent us from increasing or
sustaining our revenue and prevent us from achieving profitability We expect our competitors to continue to improve the performance of their current products and
introduce new products or new technologies. If our competitors successfully introduce new products or enhance their existing products,
this could reduce the sales or market acceptance of our products and services, increase price competition or make our products
obsolete. For instance, our competitors, such as local exchange carriers and cable television providers, may be able to bundle services
and products that we do not offer together with long distance or VoIP telephony services. These services could include wireless
communications, voice and data services, Internet access and cable television. This form of bundling would put us at a competitive
disadvantage if these providers can combine a variety of services offerings at a single attractive price. To be competitive, we must
continue to invest significant resources in research and development, sales and marketing, and customer support. We may not have
sufficient resources to make these investments or to make the technological advances necessary to be competitive, which in turn will
cause our business to suffer. Many of our current and potential competitors have longer operating histories, are substantially
larger, and have greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, technical, and other resources. Many also have greater name recognition
and a larger installed base of customers than we have. Competition in our markets may result in significant price reductions. As a result
of their greater resources, many current and potential competitors may be better able than us to initiate and withstand significant price
competition or downturns in the economy. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to compete effectively, and any
failure to do so would harm our business, operating results or financial condition. If we do not develop and maintain successful partnerships for VoIP telephony products, we may
not be able to successfully market our solutions. We are entering into new market areas and our success is partly dependent on our ability to
forge new marketing and engineering partnerships. VoIP telephony communication systems are extremely complex and few, if any,
companies possess all the required technology components needed to build a complete end to end solution. We will likely need to enter
into partnerships to augment our development programs and to assist us in marketing complete solutions to our targeted customers.
We may not be able to develop such partnerships in the course of our product development. Even if we do establish the necessary
partnerships, we may not be able to adequately capitalize on these partnerships to aid in the success of our business. Inability to protect our proprietary technology or our infringement of a third party's proprietary
technology would disrupt our business. We rely in part on trademark, copyright, and trade secret law to protect our intellectual property
in the United States and abroad. We seek to protect our software, documentation, and other written materials under trade secret and
copyright law, which afford only limited protection. We also rely in part on patent law to protect our intellectual property in the United
States and internationally. We hold fifty-nine United States patents and have a number of United States and foreign patent applications
pending. We cannot predict whether such pending patent applications will result in issued patents that effectively protect our intellectual
property. We may not be able to protect our proprietary rights in the United States or internationally (where effective intellectual property
protection may be unavailable or limited), and competitors may independently develop technologies that are similar or superior to our
technology, duplicate our technology or design around any patent of ours. We have in the past licensed and in the future expect to
continue licensing our technology to others; many of whom are located or may be located abroad. There are no assurances that such
licensees will protect our technology from misappropriation. Moreover, litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce our
intellectual property rights, to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others, or to defend against claims of
infringement or invalidity. Such litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of management time and resources and could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and operating results. Any settlement or adverse determination in
such litigation would also subject us to significant liability. There has been substantial litigation in the communications, semiconductor, electronics, and related
industries regarding intellectual property rights, and from time to time third parties may claim infringement by us of their intellectual
property rights. Our broad range of technology, including IP telephony systems, digital and analog circuits, software, and
semiconductors, increases the likelihood that third parties may claim infringement by us of their intellectual property rights. If we were
found to be infringing on the intellectual property rights of any third party, we could be subject to liabilities for such infringement, which
could be material. We could also be required to refrain from using, manufacturing or selling certain products or using certain processes,
either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. From time to time, we have received, and
may continue to receive in the future, notices of claims of infringement, misappropriation or misuse of other parties' proprietary rights.
There can be no assurance that we will prevail in these discussions and actions or that other actions alleging infringement by us of third
party patents will not be asserted or prosecuted against us. We rely upon certain technology, including hardware and software, licensed from third parties. There
can be no assurance that the technology licensed by us will continue to provide competitive features and functionality or that licenses
for technology currently utilized by us or other technology which we may seek to license in the future will be available to us on
commercially reasonable terms or at all. The loss of, or inability to maintain, existing licenses could result in shipment delays or
reductions until equivalent technology or suitable alternative products could be developed, identified, licensed and integrated, and could
harm our business. These licenses are on standard commercial terms made generally available by the companies providing the
licenses. The cost and terms of these licenses individually are not material to our business. The failure of IP networks to meet the reliability and quality standards required for voice and
video communications could render our products obsolete. Circuit-switched telephony networks feature very high reliability, with a guaranteed quality of
service. In addition, such networks have imperceptible delay and consistently satisfactory audio quality. Emerging broadband IP
networks, such as LANs, WANs, and the Internet, or emerging last mile technologies such as cable, digital subscriber lines, and
wireless local loop, may not be suitable for telephony unless such networks and technologies can provide reliability and quality
consistent with these standards. Our products must comply with industry standards, FCC regulations, state, local, country-specific
and international regulations, and changes may require us to modify existing products and/or services. In addition to reliability and quality standards, the market acceptance of telephony over
broadband IP networks is dependent upon the adoption of industry standards so that products from multiple manufacturers are able to
communicate with each other. Our VoIP telephony products rely heavily on communication standards such as SIP, H.323, MGCP and
Megaco and network standards such as TCP/IP and UDP to interoperate with other vendors' equipment. There is currently a lack of
agreement among industry leaders about which standard should be used for a particular application, and about the definition of the
standards themselves. These standards, as well as audio and video compression standards, continue to evolve. We also must comply
with certain rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding electromagnetic radiation and safety
standards established by Underwriters Laboratories, as well as similar regulations and standards applicable in other countries.
Standards are continuously being modified and replaced. As standards evolve, we may be required to modify our existing products or
develop and support new versions of our products. We must comply with certain federal, state and local requirements regarding how
we interact with our customers, including marketing practices, consumer protection, privacy and billing issues, the provision of 911
emergency service and the quality of service we provide to our customers. The failure of our products and services to comply, or delays
in compliance, with various existing and evolving standards could delay or interrupt volume production of our VoIP telephony products,
subject us to fines or other imposed penalties, or harm the perception and adoption rates of our service, any of which would have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results. Our ability to offer services outside the U.S. is subject to the local regulatory environment, which
may be unknown, complicated and often uncertain. Regulatory treatment of VoIP telephony outside the United States varies from country to
country. We currently distribute our products and services directly to consumers and through resellers that may be subject to
telecommunications regulations in their home countries. The failure of these consumers and resellers to comply with these laws and
regulations could reduce our revenue and profitability. Because of our relationship with the resellers, some countries may assert that we
are required to register as a telecommunications carrier in that country. In such case, our failure to do so could subject us to fines or
penalties. In addition, some countries are considering subjecting VoIP services to the regulations applied to traditional telephone
companies. Regulatory developments such as these could have a material adverse effect on our international operation. In many countries in which we operate or our services are sold, the status of the laws that may relate
to our services is unclear. We cannot be certain that our customers, resellers, or other affiliates are currently in compliance with
regulatory or other legal requirements in their respective countries, that they or we will be able to comply with existing or future
requirements, and/or that they or we will continue to be in compliance with any such requirements. Our failure or the failure of those
with whom we transact business to comply with these requirements could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating
results or financial condition. Future legislation or regulation of the Internet and/or voice and video over IP services could
restrict our business, prevent us from offering service or increase our cost of doing business. At present there are few laws, regulations or rulings that specifically address access to
commerce and communications services on the Internet, including IP telephony. We are unable to predict the impact, if any, that future
legislation, legal decisions or regulations concerning the Internet may have on our business, financial condition, and results of
operations. Regulation may be targeted towards, among other things, assessing access or settlement charges, imposing taxes related
to internet communications and imposing tariffs or regulations based on encryption concerns or the characteristics and quality of
products and services, any of which could restrict our business or increase our cost of doing business. The increasing growth of the
broadband IP telephony market and popularity of broadband IP telephony products and services heighten the risk that governments or
other legislative bodies will seek to regulate broadband IP telephony and the Internet. In addition, large, established telecommunication
companies may devote substantial lobbying efforts to influence the regulation of the broadband IP telephony market, which may be
contrary to our interests. Many regulatory actions are underway or are being contemplated by federal and state authorities,
including the FCC and other state and local regulatory agencies. On February 12, 2004, the FCC initiated a notice of public rule-making
to update FCC policy and consider the appropriate regulatory classification for VoIP and other IP enabled services. On November 9,
2004, the FCC ruled that Vonage DigitalVoice and similar services are jurisdictionally interstate and not subject to state certification,
tariffing and other common carrier regulations, including 911. This ruling has been subsequently appealed by several states. On
February 11, 2004, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) initiated an investigation into voice over IP providers, including
us. As a tentative conclusion of law, the CPUC stated that they believe that VoIP providers are telecommunications providers and
should be treated as such from a regulatory standpoint. There is risk that a regulatory agency requires us to conform to rules that are
unsuitable for IP communications technologies or rules that cannot be complied with due to the nature and efficiencies of IP routing, or
are unnecessary or unreasonable in light of the manner in which Packet8 offers service to its customers. It is not possible to separate
the Internet, or any service offered over it, into intrastate and interstate components. While suitable alternatives may be developed in
the future, the current IP network does not enable us to identify the geographic nature of the traffic traversing the Internet. The effects of federal, state or municipal regulatory actions could have a material adverse effect
on our business, financial condition and operating results. Several U.S. states and municipalities have recently shown an
interest in regulating VoIP services, as they do for providers of traditional telephone service. If this trend continues, and if state
regulation is not preempted by action by the U.S. federal government, we may become subject to a "patchwork quilt" of state
regulations and taxes, which would increase our costs of doing business, and adversely affect our operating results and future
prospects. We have already been contacted by several state regulatory authorities regarding our Packet8
service. On September 11, 2003, we received a letter from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, or WPSC, notifying us that the
WPSC believes that we, via our Packet8 voice and video communications service, are offering intrastate telecommunications services
in the state of Wisconsin without certification of the WPSC. According to the WPSC's letter, it believes that we cannot legally provide
Packet8-based resold intrastate services in Wisconsin without certification from the WPSC. In addition, the Commission believes that
Packet8 bills for intrastate services to Wisconsin customers are void and not collectible. The letter also states that if we do not obtain
certification to offer intrastate telecommunications services, the matter will be referred to the State of Wisconsin Attorney General for
enforcement action. The letter also states that even if the Company were certified by the WPSC, the previous operation without
certification may still subject the Company to referral to the State of Wisconsin Attorney General for enforcement action and possible
forfeitures. We consulted with counsel and have responded to the WPSC and disputed their assertions. While we do not believe that
the potential amounts of any forfeitures would be material to us, if we are subject to an enforcement action, we may become subject to
liabilities and may incur expenses that adversely affect our results of operations. On September 17, 2003, we were contacted by the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, or OPUC, and
asked to respond to a questionnaire on Voice over IP technologies that the OPUC is conducting. The OPUC inquired as to the nature of
our service, how it is provided, and to what Ohio residents the service is made available. The questionnaire did not contain any
assertions regarding the legality of the Packet8 service under Ohio law or any statements as to whether the OPUC believes we are
subject to regulation by the state of Ohio. We responded to this questionnaire on October 20, 2003. On September 22, 2003, the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, sent us a letter that
alleged that we are offering intrastate telecommunications services for profit in California without having received formal certification
from the CPUC to provide such service. The CPUC also requested that we file an application with the CPUC for authority to conduct
business as a telecommunications utility no later than October 22, 2003. After consultation with regulatory counsel, we responded to
the CPUC, disputed its assertions and did not file the requested application. In our October 22, 2003 response to the CPUC, we
disagreed with the CPUC's classification of us as a telephone corporation under the California Public Utilities Code. We asserted that
we are an information services provider and not a telecommunications provider. The letter from the CPUC did not indicate, and we
cannot predict, what any potential penalties or consequences in failing to obtain certification might be. If we are subjected to penalties,
or if we are required to comply with CPUC regulations affecting telecommunications service providers, our business may be adversely
affected. On November 13, 2003, the CPUC held a hearing in San Francisco to hear testimony from CPUC staff and industry
representatives regarding what course of action the CPUC should take with respect to Internet telephony. A representative from 8x8
testified at the hearing. On February 11, 2004, the CPUC stated that, as a tentative conclusion of law, they believe that VoIP providers
are telecommunications providers and should be treated as such from a regulatory standpoint. The CPUC initiated an investigation into
appropriate regulation of VoIP providers under state law, and acknowledged that it has not enforced the same regulatory regime over
VoIP as applies to telecommunications services. The CPUC is considering a number of potential regulatory requirements, including
contribution to state universal service programs, provisioning of 911 services, payment of access charges to interconnect with the
PSTN and compliance with NANP protocols and basic consumer protection laws, including California's telecommunications "bill of
rights." The CPUC is also considering whether exempting VoIP providers from requirements applicable to traditional providers of voice
telephony creates unfair competitive advantages that should be proactively addressed, if the regulatory framework governing the
provision of VoIP should vary based on the market served and whether VoIP providers should be subject to the current system of
intercompany compensation arrangements. The CPUC has indicated that this process could last up to 18 months, but there is no way
for us to predict the timetable or outcome of this process. On April 7, 2005, the CPUC instituted a rulemaking to assess and revise the
regulation of all telecommunications utilities in California except for small incumbent local exchange carriers, or ILECs. The primary
goal of this proceeding is to develop a uniform regulatory framework for all telecommunications utilities, except small ILECs, to the
extent that it is feasible and in the public interest to do so. While not specifically directed at VoIP, it is unclear at this time what impact
this new rulemaking will have on the CPUCs classification or treatment of VoIP services. In May 2004, in response to a 2003 complaint case brought by Frontier Telephone of Rochester
against Vonage, the New York State Public Service Commission, or NYPSC, concluded that Vonage is a telephone corporation as
defined by New York law and must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which represents the authorization of the
NYPSC to provide telephone service in New York. The NYPSC will allow a forty- five day period in which Vonage can identify and seek
waivers of any rules that it believes should not apply. Vonage will be required to provide 911 service in some form, and will be required
to file a schedule of its rates. Currently, this decision applies only to Vonage. In June 2004, a federal judge issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the NYPSC from regulating Vonage as a telecommunications carrier. Vonage has asked the federal district court to
make this a permanent injunction, and this request is being considered. While this ruling applies only to Vonage and not to us, if we are
subject to regulation by the NYPSC, we may become subject to liabilities and may incur expenses that adversely affect our results of
operations. In July 2004, we received a letter from the Arizona Corporation Commission, or ACC, stating that it
was conducting a competitive analysis of the various telecommunications markets in Arizona. The letter requested that we provide
answers to a listing of questions as well as certain data. On August 26, 2004, after executing the ACC's standard
protective agreement governing the submission of commercially sensitive information, we sent to the ACC answers to some of
the questions posed in the initial letter, together with information responsive to certain of the data requests. Inasmuch as the ACC
proceeding is a generic docket opened for the purpose of gathering information regarding VoIP, additional information requests are
possible, but none has been received to date. In late 2004 and early 2005, we received notices from multiple municipalities in California that the Packet8 service is subject to
utility user taxes, as defined in the respective municipal codes. The notices require that we begin collecting and remitting utility user
taxes no later than January 1, 2005. We have responded to these municipalities and disputed their assertions. In January 2005, we received a letter from an association representing multiple municipalities in South Carolina asserting that we
are subject to a business license tax applied to telecommunications companies. We have responded to this association and disputed
their assertion. In May 2005, we received a notice from the City of Chicago that we were being investigated for non-compliance with Chicago tax
laws as we are not collecting and remitting Chicago's Telecommunications Tax. We completed the questionnaire received and
disputed the applicability of this tax to the Packet8 service. We may be subject to liabilities for past sales and our future sales may decrease. In accordance with current industry practice, we do not collect state and federal
telecommunications taxes, other than federal excise tax, or FET, or other telecommunications surcharges with respect to our Packet8
service. We do not collect Value Added Tax, or VAT, for services that we provide to customers in European Union, or EU, member
countries. Future expansion of our Packet8 service, along with other aspects of our evolving business, may result in additional sales
and other tax obligations. One or more states or foreign countries may seek to impose sales or other tax collection obligations on out-
of-jurisdiction companies that provide telephone service. A successful assertion by one or more states or foreign countries that we
should collect sales or other taxes on the sale of merchandise or services could result in substantial tax liabilities for past sales,
decrease our ability to compete with traditional telephone companies, and could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or operating results. Potential regulation of Internet service providers could adversely affect our operations. To date, the FCC has treated Internet service providers as information service providers, though
the FCC has avoided specifically ruling on this categorization. Information service providers are currently exempt from federal and state
regulations governing common carriers, including the obligation to pay access charges and contribute to the universal service fund. The
FCC is currently examining the status of Internet service providers and the services they provide. If the FCC were to determine that
Internet service providers, or the services they provide, are subject to FCC regulation, including the payment of access charges and
contribution to the universal service funds, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating
results. There may be risks associated with the lack of 911 emergency dialing or the limitations
associated with E911 emergency dialing with the Packet8 service. In May 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
or NPRM, which requires VoIP providers that interconnect with the PSTN, or interconnected VoIP providers, to provide emergency 911,
or E911, service. On June 3, 2005, the FCC released the text of the First Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the VoIP E911 proceeding, or the VoIP E911 Order. As a result of the VoIP E911 Order, interconnected VoIP providers
were required to implement the E911 emergency calling capabilities offered by traditional landline phone companies. All interconnected
VoIP providers must deliver 911 calls to the appropriate local public safety answering point, or PSAP, through the PSTN's legacy
wireline selective router, which is used to deliver E911 calls, along with call back number and location, where the PSAP is able to
receive that information. E911 must be included in the basic service offering; it cannot be an optional or extra feature. The PSAP
delivery obligation, along with call back number and location information must be provided regardless of whether the VoIP service is
"fixed" or "nomadic." User registration of location is permissible initially, although the FCC is committed to an advanced form of E911
that will determine user location without user intervention, one of the topics of the further NPRM to be released eventually. The VoIP
E911 Order mandates that existing and prospective customers must be notified of the capabilities and limitations of VoIP service with
respect to emergency calling, and interconnected VoIP providers must obtain and maintain affirmative acknowledgement from each
customer that the customer has read and understood the notice of limitations and distribute warning labels or stickers alerting
consumers and other potential users of the limitations of VoIP E911 service to each new subscriber prior to the initiation of service. In
addition, an interconnected VoIP provider must make it possible for customers to update their address (i.e., change their registered
location) via at least one option that requires no equipment other than that needed to access the VoIP service. All interconnected VoIP
providers must comply with the requirements of the VoIP E911 Order within one-hundred and twenty days of the publication of the VoIP
E911 Order in the Federal Register, which was November 28, 2005, with the exception that the customer notification obligations must
be complied with within thirty days of the publication. Beginning in June 2004, we offered E911 service as an option to Packet8 subscribers who choose phone numbers in markets
where E911 service is available (our E911 service was initially only available in a subset of the markets where we provided telephone
numbers). Even with E911 provisioned, the IP dialtone service provided by Packet8 is only as reliable as a customer's underlying
broadband data service and Internet service provider (neither service is provided by us), and may not be suitable for use in all
emergency situations. For customers who chose not to or were unable to subscribe to our E911 service, we played a recorded
message in response to customers who dialed 911 from these lines instructing them to hang up and either dial their local police/fire
department directly from the phone on the Packet8 service, or to dial 911 from a phone connected to the traditional telephone network.
On July 26, 2005 the FCC issued guidance to all interconnected VoIP providers regarding the July 29, 2005 notification deadline. In
this guidance, the FCC determined that it would not initiate enforcement action until August 30, 2005 against any provider of
interconnected VoIP service regarding the requirement that it obtain affirmative acknowledgement by every existing subscriber, on the
condition that the provider file a detailed report with the FCC by August 10, 2005 containing a variety of detailed descriptions. To date,
we have filed the reports requested by the FCC, and we suspended service of an insignificant number of subscribers on August 30,
2005 who had not responded to our acknowledgement requests. On November 7, 2005 the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC issued a notice to interconnected VoIP providers detailing the
information required to be submitted to the FCC in E911 compliance letters due by November 28, 2005. In this notice, the Enforcement
Bureau stated that, although it does not require providers that have not achieved full E911 compliance by November 28, 2005 to
discontinue the provision of interconnected VoIP services to any existing customers, it does expect that such providers will discontinue
marketing VoIP service, and accepting new customers for their service, in all areas where they are not transmitting 911 calls to the
appropriate PSAP in full compliance with the Commission's rules. On November 28, 2005 we began offering nomadic E911 service to
all of our customers with United States service addresses, and began charging those customers an additional $1.99 per month plus any
applicable local 911 taxes and surcharges effective January 1, 2006. On November 28, 2005, we also modified the Packet8 account
signup procedures to require service addresses to be entered and validated, at the time an order for service is placed, to ascertain
whether Packet8's nomadic 911 service is available at that address. On November 28, 2005, we also filed our E911 compliance report
which is available on the FCC's website under Wireline Competition Docket Number 05-196. The FCC may determine that our nomadic E911 solution does not satisfy the requirements of the VoIP E911 order because, in
some instances, our nomadic E911 solution requires that we route an E911 call to a national emergency call center instead of
connecting Packet8 subscribers directly to a local PSAP. The FCC may issue further guidance on compliance requirements in the
future that might require us to disconnect a significant number of subscribers. The effect of such disconnections or any enforcement
action initiated by the FCC or other agency or task force against us could have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows. The VoIP E911 Order has increased our cost of doing business and may adversely affect our ability to deliver the Packet8 service
to new and existing customers in all geographic regions or to nomadic customers who move to a location where E911 services
compliant with the FCC's mandates are unavailable. We cannot guarantee that E911 service will be available to all of our subscribers,
especially those accessing our service from outside of the United States. The VoIP E911 Order or follow-on orders or clarifications or
their impact on our customers due to service price increases or other factors could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position and results of operations. There may be risks associated with our ability to comply with the requirements of federal law enforcement agencies. On August 5, 2005, the FCC unanimously adopted an order responsive to a joint petition filed by the Department of Justice,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug Enforcement Administration asking the FCC to declare that broadband Internet
access services and VoIP services be covered by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. The Order
concludes that CALEA applies to facilities-based broadband Internet access providers and providers of interconnected VoIP service
and requires these providers to be in full compliance within 18 months of September 23, 2005. The FCC also stated that, in the coming
months, it will release another order that will address separate questions regarding the assistance capabilities required of the providers
covered by the August 5, 2005 order. The FCC stated that the subsequent order will include other important issues under CALEA,
such as compliance extensions and exemptions, cost recovery, identification of future services and entities subject to CALEA, and
enforcement. Because the FCC has not yet released the implementation details in the second order, it is impossible for us to quantify
the effects that this order, or other future orders, will have on us, but our failure to achieve compliance with any future CALEA orders or
any enforcement action initiated by the FCC or other agency or task force against us could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Our success depends on our ability to handle a large number of simultaneous calls, which our
network may not be able to accommodate. We expect the volume of simultaneous calls to increase significantly as the Packet8 subscriber
base grows. Our network hardware and software may not be able to accommodate this additional volume. If we fail to maintain an
appropriate level of operating performance, or if our service is disrupted, our reputation could be hurt, we could lose customers and this
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We could be liable for breaches of security on our web site, fraudulent activities of our users, or
the failure of third-party vendors to deliver credit card transaction processing services. A fundamental requirement for operating an internet-based, worldwide voice and video
communications service and electronically billing our Packet8 customers is the secure transmission of confidential information and
media over public networks. Although we have developed systems and processes that are designed to protect consumer information
and prevent fraudulent credit card transactions and other security breaches, failure to mitigate such fraud or breaches may adversely
affect our operating results. The law relating to the liability of providers of online payment services is currently unsettled. We rely on
third party providers to process and guarantee payments made by Packet8 subscribers up to certain limits, and we may be unable to
prevent our customers from fraudulently receiving goods and services. Our liability risk will increase if a larger fraction of our Packet8
transactions involve fraudulent or disputed credit card transactions. Any costs we incur as a result of fraudulent or disputed transactions
could harm our business. In addition, the functionality of our current billing system relies on certain third-party vendors delivering
services. If these vendors are unable or unwilling to provide services, we will not be able to charge for our Packet8 services in a timely
or scalable fashion, which could significantly decrease our revenue and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and operating results. We have experienced losses due to subscriber fraud and theft of service. Subscribers have obtained access to the Packet8 service without paying for monthly service and
international toll calls by unlawfully using our authorization codes and submitting fraudulent credit card information. To date, such
losses from unauthorized credit card transactions and theft of service have not been significant. We have implemented anti-fraud
procedures in order to control losses relating to these practices, but these procedures may not be adequate to effectively limit all of our
exposure in the future from fraud. If our procedures are not effective, consumer fraud and theft of service could significantly decrease
our revenue and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. Intellectual property and proprietary rights of others could prevent us from using necessary
technology to provide IP voice and video services. While we do not know of any technologies that are patented by others that we believe are
necessary for us to provide our services, certain necessary technology may in fact be patented by other parties either now or in the
future. If such technology were held under patent by another person, we would have to negotiate a license for the use of that certain
technology. We may not be able to negotiate such a license at a price that is acceptable. The existence of such a patent, or our inability
to negotiate a license for any such technology on acceptable terms, could force us to cease using such technology and offering
products and services incorporating such technology. If we discover product defects, we may have product-related liabilities which may cause us to
lose revenues or delay market acceptance of our products. Products as complex as those we offer frequently contain errors, defects, and functional
limitations when first introduced or as new versions are released. We have in the past experienced such errors, defects or functional
limitations. We sell products into markets that are extremely demanding of robust, reliable, fully functional products. Therefore, delivery
of products with production defects or reliability, quality or compatibility problems could significantly delay or hinder market acceptance
of such products, which could damage our credibility with our customers and adversely affect our ability to retain our existing customers
and to attract new customers. Moreover, such errors, defects or functional limitations could cause problems, interruptions, delays or a
cessation of sales to our customers. Alleviating such problems may require significant expenditures of capital and resources by us.
Despite our testing, our suppliers or our customers may find errors, defects or functional limitations in new products after
commencement of commercial production. This could result in additional development costs, loss of, or delays in, market acceptance,
diversion of technical and other resources from our other development efforts, product repair or replacement costs, claims by our
customers or others against us, or the loss of credibility with our current and prospective customers. We will likely need to raise
additional capital to support our operations. As of December 31, 2005, we had cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and investments
of approximately $27.7 million. Unless we achieve and maintain profitability, we will need to raise additional capital. We may not be able
to obtain such additional financing as needed on acceptable terms, or at all, which may require us to reduce our operating costs and
other expenditures, including reductions of personnel and capital expenditures. If we issue additional equity or convertible debt
securities to raise funds, the ownership percentage of our existing stockholders would be reduced and they may experience significant
dilution. New investors may demand rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of existing holders of our common stock. If we are
not successful in these actions, we may be forced to cease operations. We may not be able to maintain our listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market, which has certain compliance
requirements for continued listing of common stock. If our minimum closing bid price per share falls below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive business
days in the future, we may again be subject to delisting procedures. As of the close of business on January 30, 2006, our common
stock had a closing bid price of approximately $2.00 per share. We must also meet additional continued listing requirements contained
in Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(b), which requires that we have a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders' equity or
$50,000,000 market value of listed securities or $500,000 of net income from continuing operations for the most recently completed
fiscal year (or two of the three most recently completed fiscal years). As of January 30, 2006, based on our closing price as of that day,
the market value of our securities approximated $120 million and we were in compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(b).
There can be no assurance that we will continue to meet the continued listing requirements. Delisting could reduce the ability of our shareholders to purchase or sell shares as quickly and as
inexpensively as they have done historically. For instance, failure to obtain listing on another market or exchange may make it more
difficult for traders to sell our securities. Broker-dealers may be less willing or able to sell or make a market in our common stock. Not
maintaining our Nasdaq Capital Market listing may: While we believe that we currently have adequate internal control procedures in place, we are
still exposed to potential risks from recent legislation requiring companies to periodically evaluate internal controls under Section 404 of
the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. We have evaluated our internal controls systems in order to allow management to report on, and our independent auditors to
attest to, the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, as required by this legislation. We are required to perform the
system and process evaluation and testing (and any necessary remediation) required in an effort to allow our management to assess
the effectiveness of our system of internal controls over financial reporting as of the end of each fiscal year. Our independent auditors
must then attest to and report on that assessment by our management to comply with the management certification and auditor
attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (Section 404). As a result, we have and expect to continue to incur
significant additional expenses and diversion of management's time towards Section 404 compliance. In any fiscal year, we may fail to
timely complete our evaluation, testing and remediation actions in order to allow for this assessment by our management or our
independent auditors may not be able to timely attest to our management's assessment. If we are not able to comply with the
requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, we might be subject to sanctions or investigation by
regulatory authorities, such as the Securities Exchange Commission or the Nasdaq Capital Market. Further, if our independent auditors
are not satisfied with our internal control over financial reporting or with the level at which it is documented, designed, operated or
reviewed, they may decline to attest to management's assessment or may issue a qualified report identifying a material weakness in
our internal controls. Any such action could adversely affect our financial results and could cause our stock price to decline. ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK Foreign Currency Our financial market risk consists primarily of risks associated with international operations and related
foreign currencies. We derive a portion of our revenues from customers in Europe and Asia. In order to reduce the risk from fluctuation
in foreign exchange rates, the vast majority of our sales are denominated in U.S. dollars. In addition, almost all of our arrangements
with our contract manufacturers are denominated in U.S. dollars. We have a foreign subsidiary in France and are exposed to market
risk from changes in exchange rates. We have not entered into any currency hedging activities. To date, our exposure to exchange rate
volatility has not been significant; however, there can be no assurance that there will not be a material impact in the future. Investments We maintain an investment portfolio of various holdings, types and maturities. These marketable securities
are generally classified as available for sale and, consequently, are recorded on the balance sheet at fair value with unrealized gains or
losses reported as a separate component of accumulated other comprehensive loss. Part of this portfolio includes investments in bank
issues, corporate bonds and commercial papers. ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES Evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures.
Our management evaluated, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and our
Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer
have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information we are required to disclose in
reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the
time periods specified in Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms. In addition, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief
Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures also are effective to ensure that information required to be
disclosed in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act of 1934 is accumulated and communicated to our management,
including our principal executive and principal financial officers, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Changes in internal control over financial reporting. There was no change in our internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. CEO and CFO Certifications Attached, as Exhibits 31 and 32, are two separate forms of certifications of the CEO and the CFO. The certifications attached
as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 are required in accordance with Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Section 302
Certifications"). The information contained in this Item 4 relates to the Controls Evaluation referred to in the Section 302
Certifications, and should be read with the Section 302 Certifications for a more complete understanding of the topics presented. Disclosure Controls and Internal Controls Our management, including the CEO and CFO, has a responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate disclosure and
internal controls over our financial reporting. Disclosure Controls are procedures that are designed with the objective of ensuring that
information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, such as this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC rules and forms. Disclosure
Controls are also designed with the objective of ensuring that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management,
including the CEO and CFO, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Internal controls are procedures
that are designed with the objective of providing reasonable assurance that our transactions are properly authorized, our assets are
safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use, and our transactions are properly recorded and reported, all to permit the
preparation of our financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls Our management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal controls will
prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not
absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that
there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent
limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud,
if any, within a company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be
faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual
acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control. The design of any system of
controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any
design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. In addition, over time, controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of
the inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Our
disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide a reasonable level of assurance of reaching our desired control
objectives. PART II - OTHER INFORMATION SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized. Date: February 9, 2006 8X8, INC. (Registrant) By: /s/ James Sullivan James Sullivan Chief Financial Officer, Vice President of Finance and Secretary CK^26^+=
M$'_O(-/?0`7T(G_%UMHV"VKJ59"3#5VW@5,K'08TDTE%N`F\1A^CUB_$O<.%
MV\!?^1;6^3PR^C#DMT&7#ENG+D`V'<2-\TU4(!-<`#['H'D;+)]"6T03[H(Y
MJ)%&8.?KX"7O?!)"L%[L)?`@\)3O:50F\P%E@CC*I[F<+\%ZZR!S"):Y3&.B
MPIJ@;X#[RY#GA?>F\D[<1=KB'I=^V0V> /8Q&T?KP3V?>UCR4I=][Y4=_8(\=DPGU=!7^6+5_>_?LVAMJO3`EM1\^
M"`6*GMNX+1^%>J&1%O'(@Z(X+@EP!]#4.?F"ZAQ[SKK@..=>EE]6+;/+ULN.
M9;?JK2*:HDBX*J`5@VA@JE:'Z-9@=:>RK%.9P\G+,EJ&O)W0)"6EJI;.QD8*
M^F8:E]C#K0^"X1TNS+HD%^7*47^5U.V*<.T#75AC:-\]D`]K#Y0.NSHX!0*U
MM9&S9%<@E!$0$%`2PV9"K[O$[[&_];CU$*%))NJWNFU6JV0+VQS6B)6U66R5
MG)XS<+1<9359?9Z@"47K6DVX601M2P-HY5J="?%,K0E7E8!F+`8MT.0UX38;
ML)"SQ82VU@.K*"TS8;,<&*>N-J&:(F#H42/P^,IK?*2]AB#D&`O80LI9+O`V
M$O9@)0_!A;AS/F\(PFNW82_WM%V1!_S7S$RNU27INVO/OW[J_<.]/^C=,=_I
MZ^6T=;I:-^_UF.ES72=ZSL]TS_7VSG6Y!:>+=[OJW&X+<^#!('/VWIL?7'_A
MPOAXYH7P=V[.=X=JROP]2]=[?.O?&KBP/W-UX+T#XQ]\(Q#LO)7M\H6Z%Z\E
M?)`!B8U/F:\A%SQH*^J&V-E0XEZ"8A-8KBFN+C%SFFJS(2KO:IRHGJB?\$VT
M'ZV6R[PXD=NXF:W@_$1*#DV9OT'RV=V)#ON(8L@XU##D'=LZZ9W9^HE9I5*+
MY?)6;[3!J%)3C7)Y#F^3^%9C16NKD98Y7$YWDP+[C(URA]A:'BTN]KR#J'<@
MOW+TSJ5PIT`7YZA9J83MNL-Q;(D'OC`Y[,ZBN$W^'[*K!KB)XXSN[NE./IVL
MOY-T.AGKQ]8);&%9!DE@8ZPSQ01LP`Y.(28Q%BY@`\%C0!FUI."`0/8),)
M/PV.[::$A$"+@0#"M$/+0(!F.F;:I--,V\&3.AVW1!/:<:"46'3W;)+.=$9:
M[9Q.I]U][WOO?;_$S5X)O`%$D(,^NC@EXJP0!'MZ`KXJ\Z+3"[T=T1`,79YS
MIMFYV8EP&Y4G9\POKA.;Q7:Q2^P33XM7Q"'QCOB5J!'%
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
-------------------- --------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Net loss, as reported................................ $ (6,789) $ (5,840) $ (17,493) $ (12,159)
Add: Employee stock-based compensation expense
included in reported net loss................... -- -- -- 3
Deduct: Total employee stock-based compensation
expense determined pursuant to SFAS No.123... (778) (799) (2,132) (1,678)
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Pro forma net loss................................... $ (7,567) $ (6,639) $ (19,625) $ (13,834)
========= ========= ========= =========
Basic and diluted net loss per share:
As reported..................................... $ (0.12) $ (0.13) $ (0.32) $ (0.28)
Pro forma....................................... $ (0.14) $ (0.14) $ (0.36) $ (0.32)
December 31, March 31,
2005 2005
------------- -------------
Inventory (in thousands):
Raw materials and work-in-process .................. $ 2,796 $ 1,267
Finished goods ..................................... 392 333
------------- -------------
$ 3,188 $ 1,600
============= =============
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
-------------------- --------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Common stock options ................................ 8,867 6,834 8,867 6,834
Warrants ............................................ 8,417 5,979 8,417 5,979
--------- --------- --------- ---------
17,284 12,813 17,284 12,813
========= ========= ========= =========
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
-------------------- --------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Net loss, as reported................................ $ (6,789) $ (5,840) $ (17,493) $ (12,159)
Unrealized gain (loss) on investments in securities.. 7 -- (6) --
Less: reclassification adjustment for gain
(loss) included in net loss....................... -- -- 6 --
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Comprehensive loss................................... $ (6,782) $ (5,840) $ (17,493) $ (12,159)
========= ========= ========= =========
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
-------------------- --------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Packet8 and videophones/equipment.................... $ 8,400 $ 2,707 $ 20,972 $ 6,199
Semiconductors and related software.................. 80 232 550 1,262
Hosted iPBX solutions................................ 3 25 29 103
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Total revenues ................................... $ 8,483 $ 2,964 $ 21,551 $ 7,564
========= ========= ========= =========
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
-------------------- --------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Americas.......................................... 99% 93% 98% 89%
Europe............................................ -- 7% 1% 9%
Asia Pacific...................................... 1% -- 1% 2%
--------- --------- --------- ---------
100% 100% 100% 100%
========= ========= ========= =========
Three Nine
Months Ended Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
2005 2005
------------- -------------
Balance at beginning of period......................... $ 182 $ 187
Accruals for warranties................................ 176 428
Settlements............................................ (106) (276)
Changes in estimates................................... -- (87)
------------- -------------
Balance at end of period............................... $ 252 $ 252
============= =============
Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2006...................................... $ 120
2007................................................ 482
2008................................................ 490
2009................................................ 493
2010................................................ 206
-------------
Total minimum payments................................. $ 1,791
=============
Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2006...................................... $ 6
2007................................................ 25
2008................................................ 25
2009................................................ 25
2010................................................ 25
2011................................................ 2
-------------
Total minimum payments................................. 108
Less: Amount representing interest..................... (13)
-------------
95
Less: Short-term portion of capital lease obligations.. (19)
-------------
Long-term portion of capital lease obligations......... $ 76
=============
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
License and service revenues 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 6,769 $ 2,332 $ 4,437 190.3%
Percentage of total revenues............... 79.8% 78.7%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 17,484 $ 5,646 $ 11,838 209.7%
Percentage of total revenues............... 81.1% 74.6%
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Product revenues 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 1,714 $ 632 $ 1,082 171.2%
Percentage of total revenues............... 20.2% 21.3%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 4,067 $ 1,918 $ 2,149 112.0%
Percentage of total revenues............... 18.9% 25.4%
Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended
December 31, December 31,
-------------------- --------------------
2005 2004 2005 2004
--------- --------- --------- ---------
Americas.......................................... 99% 93% 98% 89%
Europe............................................ -- 7% 1% 9%
Asia Pacific...................................... 1% -- 1% 2%
--------- --------- --------- ---------
100% 100% 100% 100%
========= ========= ========= =========
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Cost of license and service revenues 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 3,326 $ 1,442 $ 1,884 130.7%
Percentage of license and service revenues. 49.1% 61.8%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 8,190 $ 3,492 $ 4,698 134.5%
Percentage of total revenues............... 38.0% 46.2%
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Cost of product revenues 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 3,357 $ 1,073 $ 2,284 212.9%
Percentage of product revenues............. 195.9% 169.8%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 7,999 $ 2,862 $ 5,137 179.5%
Percentage of total revenues............... 37.1% 37.8%
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Research and development 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 1,470 $ 784 $ 686 87.5%
Percentage of total revenues............... 17.3% 26.5%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 4,240 $ 2,044 $ 2,196 107.4%
Percentage of total revenues............... 19.7% 27.0%
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Selling, general and administrative 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 7,244 $ 5,650 $ 1,594 28.2%
Percentage of total revenues............... 85.4% 190.6%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 19,151 $ 11,785 $ 7,366 62.5%
Percentage of total revenues............... 88.9% 155.8%
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Other income, net 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ 125 $ 145 $ (20) -13.8%
Percentage of total revenues............... 1.5% 4.9%
Nine months ended.......................... $ 536 $ 440 $ 96 21.8%
Percentage of total revenues............... 2.5% 5.8%
December 31,
-------------------- Dollar Percent
Benefit for income taxes 2005 2004 Change Change
- --------------------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
(dollar amounts in thousands)
Three months ended......................... $ -- $ -- $ -- --
Percentage of total revenues............... -- --
Nine months ended.......................... $ -- $ 20 $ (20) -100.0%
Percentage of total revenues............... -- 0.3%
Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2006...................................... $ 120
2007................................................ 482
2008................................................ 490
2009................................................ 493
2010................................................ 206
-------------
Total minimum payments................................. $ 1,791
=============
Year ending March 31:
Remaining 2006...................................... $ 6
2007................................................ 25
2008................................................ 25
2009................................................ 25
2010................................................ 25
2011................................................ 2
-------------
Total minimum payments................................. 108
Less: Amount representing interest..................... (13)
-------------
95
Less: Short-term portion of capital lease obligations.. (19)
-------------
Long-term portion of capital lease obligations......... $ 76
=============
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
/G%YU>]8S`&W@3
MQRTAR!8?]MG1XI*T0=)A0NB$$$=5GY-3@,'^SS/Y1UV<^=;$;M52*+9#G3S*
M)\4*NU?5+O6'5U=F)2J&VQJ:K6K(![QN*L549]?#?@48`$%];8@*96YD
U6[+DX?#H=U%)#"HS[P:
M<;0SW69[]5XOT4/7FA?:Y2)4X"OX=GE6=_N7_>)58Y),GV_)J5J^]Z!^?=BZ
MG[9HIEQ[[5+<:O)TX[Z"%._DK.+=.WSO[]GDQVIR=MUO'M6Y8\W(ZYTS:VH+
M#)Z<[TG%0[9L])"K>Y\$'GB=:QI>*3V]N=D[-7IVHW)28DKU%XLOM<[*;K`V
M>V9SXVP-L_UM3R<,VGQGXOSLV1E;<$RPP>V!@L!C>O?)H%3#8?\D$]5!5PT_
MPX2NQ:C'E_G/^_CZ:?5/A2L?)K78)G9XN=>97T$4NU^\>HW@60E151`.AH&0
MOQCV7?R"!;A'&4#'CB`2H1CRU0)=X82)_3`2?JE;&('$P^NBROZKBJ3.,JQS
M"W:[W(*=QD*:)
FWFPA<)3.`\:S[']YH?>CT+S]1SF
M3KQ=O!GV[^$!/L7O\!D^R^?Y=WR!K_$_!$/[$KSEV`5K12?6\(H8$*;X".]M
M\6^E4"E6EBA+E4HE@M7L5WJQGF\IUY115:BYZF*U4=VKONM0'.V.(XYCCG..
MWS@^<;J<&^)GQ+T3!(_RGCBK5BI;Z035"T7Y1%P0%;Q;C/-K(I_/0EJ^4J_4
M"[\H)\'#B/)M-#WEF-/C](CIY$J)2![BJ/`JZ]5")8.^AOU&HED\)R)TDM^A
M<5&+2-NIC(@3XG'EF'I(K>0KM!SM-^U=^%
M/?H\_9P&<)(`VD*L-NJ"6NA)9.0Z:D-'!9Q%)IXE*Z5B':Z`/L%J',:HG&6`
M!OCO?)?O8G^W\Z_Y2_Z,EVH[D;48]HV7EO)-:#[C6_P;>+R$+)S"7'_`>\-'
M]"%_CSL0X8=T`3&Z4,LOH`*SZ1:J_0+H$KV*\^,G_"SH'=`%?I5OS&9[)@NR
M4F2>"U0]$->!@G2'_L1?8;T^(E+/*)R;B.$5[-IW^7V>Q#GX'BIWC)W8&?F\
M@WWBAW1977^:+_(O^;=JCSL5E2B:FJ%WD8&Y_5FJ@34P\_Q\5,Q]=CP,G^-4
MDL\,>2?_"^Y_*"X@Z5^WF`%_`.M:6ZI_I\
M]>5J-5I=7]U
$$C-HJ*%28*BF"D)VE
MR(.7W(TG^-N'(0\;T]#`-#9D>G*ES8Z8W2Y/E!0B4[[Q#
M3RA+)&GF0II<_YB>:372LC4Q7CQ6O%B<+=I"Q:DZ*S<`2PP=Y]%T79'K--U4
MY(RF%Q1YN:9C179KL9`BRUH,A*-%BW4H