Steven Lewis: So you were please that the results were what you expected earlier at least three months?
Daniel Baker : Well, we don’t provide, as you probably know, we don’t — like most companies, we don’t provide forward-looking guidance, so there’s not much to compare to, but we look at it and say, how did we do given the environment and given the difficulty of the fair. So yes, we were pleased with how our folks executed and delivering orders and bringing in new business. And the profitability, the efficiency and the execution that our team had for the quarter.
Steven Lewis: You’re pleased with the back log?
Daniel Baker : We’re pleased with the order flow, given the industry conditions, but the industry is improving as we touched on in other questions. And we expect the expectations are for a much stronger semiconductor market in the coming year in calendar 2024.
Steven Lewis: Thank you very much.
Daniel Baker : Thank you, Steven.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Pete [Indiscernible]. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi, Dan, with the significant patent portfolio the company has, do you see any opportunities to license some of those patents to create additional revenue streams?
Daniel Baker : We’ve looked from time to time at the possibility of licensing. And in particular, we talked about licensing our MRAM portfolio. We were a pioneer in MRAM, which is spintronic memory but our target market for that technology is in high-value low-density memories where we can build the type of fab that can be used as opposed to the multibillion-dollar fabs that make large-scale memories. So there’s an opportunity for potentially licensing. It’s a long-term opportunity. And then we have other ways of monetizing our intellectual property. We’re very proud of our portfolio of intellectual property. And one way we can monetize that is private label sales, where we sell our products under another company’s brand name.
So we’re still manufacturing it. We’re proud of our manufacturing capability. And so licensing the technology and not making it means getting that up. And it’s also, in some cases, we’ve invested quite a bit in the technology and in the infrastructure, and it’s not that easy for somebody else to build it. But we do explore opportunities to leverage our intellectual property portfolio in other ways than simply selling parts under our own brand.
Unidentified Analyst: Great. Thank you very much.
Daniel Baker : Thanks, Pete.
Operator: Thank you. Please standby for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Collin McBirney with Topline Capital Management. Your line is open.
Collin McBirney: Hi, Dan. Thanks for taking the question. I was wondering on the — in the past, you’ve talked about the lumpiness in defense. Could you maybe just comment like outside of if you kind of set aside defense, maybe either for the quarter or for the first half? Like is the business outside of defense, like flat? Or just to get a sense for kind of the run rate?
Daniel Baker : Yeah, that’s — we don’t break down precisely our defense versus non-defense business, but defense was a major influence on the most recent quarter on the September quarter. And as I mentioned in response to a prior question, we were pleased with the results, setting that aside for the non-defense business. It has been a slow industry and that affects us. But the defense was a particular — there was a particular drag on revenue in the most recent quarter.
Collin McBirney: Got it. And then on the defense business, are those orders placed by like the U.S. government like the DLA or something? Or are they typically placed by a prime contractor? And then maybe you could just like touch on like maybe how many like customers you have in defense, like is it one that places an order for a couple of million dollars? Or is it like 10 of them and they kind of come in lumpy — it sounds like it’s very lumpy. But is that because there’s like one customer, the U.S. government or something or yeah?
