Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
dws,
I think that what we saw this AM is a sign that some IDCC shorties are really getting stressed out at this point.
IMHO - Tomcat
dws,
That is not many shares!
If the seller could realize a real market decline of that amount, The seller could make many multiples of that (377 x 10 = $3770) sacrifice with put options purchased yesterday.
IMHO - Tomcat
Yep. It was a headfake.
dws,
How many shares?
I suspect this is a scare tactic by the shorties.
There is always a big bid asked spread after hours. One can sell at the bid and produce a result like we are seeing today. The same was done yesterday, when the stock was down $5 premarket.
IMHO - Tomcat
Anybody seen any news this morning? Pre-trades down 10%.
Part of a larger article on Frand during 2023
The English judiciary sought to establish more transparent conduct in SEP licensing negotiations.
In March, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales issued a FRAND determination in InterDigital Technology Corp. v. Lenovo Group Ltd., a multipatent infringement litigation in the U.K.
The court primarily used a comparable license approach to derive a rate for InterDigital's worldwide portfolio of 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, and high-efficiency video coding patents, and did not rely at all on a top-down approach,[10] even though this methodology had been used more extensively in prior U.K. decisions such as Unwired Planet International Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. as a cross-check.
The court also rejected InterDigital's use of a "hedonic price regression."[11] InterDigital had sought royalties of between $1 and $2 per device, but the court determined a rate of just $0.175 per device.[12] That said, the court imposed this royalty rate over a 16-year period notwithstanding national statutes limiting patent damages.[13]
Additionally, the court made several notable comments lamenting the lack of transparency in SEP licensing discussions, including: "It is not FRAND nor is a licensor acting as a willing licensor if it refuses to provide the information necessary for a willing licensee to evaluate an offer which has been made."[14] In relation to this, the court noted that Lenovo was justified in seeking information about InterDigital's licenses with others, and that "it is clear to me that InterDigital's reliance on the confidentiality of the PLAs [patent license agreements] with companies like Samsung, Apple, Huawei and LG was less than helpful, let alone transparent."[15]
After the decision came down, InterDigital filed new patent infringement litigation on the video coding standards against Lenovo in multiple jurisdictions despite the U.K. judiciary's rate-setting determination. That litigation is ongoing, notwithstanding that InterDigital and Lenovo agreed to a multiyear license covering InterDigital's high-efficiency video coding patents.[16]
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1778635/the-year-in-frand-what-to-know-heading-into-2024?copied=1
Since 1989 for me, a King of Prussia boy. I still have my Ultraphone pin, a small pile of IDC annual reports, and memories of Harry Campagna at the annual meetings at various King of Prussia hotels where they always had Tastycakes and soft pretzels. I have about a quarter of my shares remaining, surrendering some of my shares last week. And yes, I have seller's remorse.
I will never totally relinquish my IDCC shares. I will take some to the grave with me as, at this point, it's personal.
Price is going down with the market
Still here..but not as much as before..will hold the rest till the end...
Me too for over 10 years. 1st post
When Interdigital lays out its case you’re vision may be correct. To many loose ends from that last judgement.
Leave before achieving the full IDCC potential, never.
tbt 00 son't you mean 'Squealing' when they have to cover ! ! !
OK Mickey (his favorite line) ! LOL all the way to the bank (finally) ! ! !
Macc14,
I agree! Also, the shorts will be screaming as they buy!
IMHO - Tomcat
Over 35 years here. Still quite long and thankful to you all for your inspiration and messaging.
I am still here, but I believe it is time to be quiet so long as the company continues pitching a no-hitter versus the shorts.
mo
loop
The ride since May has been spectacular!
Still here after 23 years, still holding 100%, and enjoying the ride.
Also still here with about a third of my total holdings. Enjoying the ride.
Regarding Lenovo - I'm interested in hearing any speculation involving what lays ahead. The HEVC license was great and should simplify (to some small extent) negotiations. But IDCC's appeal regarding the royalty rates for past usage could be a wildcard. I can envision another $100 million+ (JMHO).
I am still here, with about a quarter of what I once had. I Know my brother got very frustrated with the old management and got out. I suspect he was not alone.
This used to be a very active board. Wonder if there are not nearly as many individual investors here as there used to be.
A new all time high and all is quiet
in think WE ...including myself at the top of the list....pay way too much attention to the shorts machinations....except when it comes from playing dirty pool [see BOA analyst]....the company has done everything they can do to prevent dilution of our shares...and now it seems they are finally delivering on the dollars...at some point were gonna have 50% cash as pct of mkt cap....no debt and growing business....thats what should scare the shorts!!!
cat...yes and no....if they are held in a margin account...even if not on margin...they can be lent...if they held in an ira...they're not supposed to be lent w/o an hypothecation agreement signed from the customer.......but those two instances...are in the DEEP minority...95% of shares are owned by institutions...who lend....THE MOST INTERESTING buyer is when the company makes night night by buying the shares...and putting them to sleep
tnyellowtomcat, I was told once before that if you DO NOT WANT your shares to be lent out, instruct your broker
OR
put a sell order in, all or none, good until cancelled, at some high sales price that would put them out of reach or at some price that you would not mind selling out and taking the profit.
Your broker may limit the 'GOOD UNTIL CANCELLED' timeframe to somethine reasonable (say 6 months), at which time it would be dropped (but I am not sure of this or not).
Maybe someone can clarify this for all.
Vegas,
If so, this would seem to lead to the short players "Swimming without swimsuits," - a phrase I believe attributed to Warren Buffett in reference to overextended players!
Tomcat
Vegas - a observation and question?
If someone borrows IDCC shares and sells them to be short, does the buyer on the other side of the short transaction have IDCC shares that his broker can in turn lend out for someone else to sell to be short? Is this like the fractional reserve system in banking, where one loan then triggers multiple loan and deposit transactions?
Thanks - Tomcat
Today have we already suffered our daily trough of late but now on to a new 52-week high. Rhetorical question, we shall see at close today.
i have no freaking idea at this point........im just an innocent bystander on this crazy ride!!
Teepee, Is there a gravitational pull towards $103.00?
big cat....idc is easy to borrow because it is almost completely institutionally owned...institutional accounts freely lend their shares....via a complete lending program for all their holdings.....as far as im concerned....thats the trap for the shorts....if it was trading at a high rate in the lending market....the shorts might take pause before shorting more....also i think the big increase in short interest is somehow tied to the converts....as they are now completely in the money...even past the collar price which i think was 103...which idc sold to avoid the dilution at the stated conversion rate
tnyellowtomcat, as of close there was still 200K shares available to borrow.
Triple Witching volume for IDCC over 1.7M shares now.
Over 1.1 million shares traded to the upside. Let’s hope some good news is about.
Scooby,
I am wondering how hard IDCC stock is getting to borrow. What interest rate do shorts have to pay?
Last time we approached $100 and pulled back, the short interest increased. Seemingly trapped shorts were able to (temporarily) save themselves by strategically shorting more shares on low volume days. I would bet that is harder to do now, that short interest is higher & with a increased company share buyback budget.
My thoughts - Tomcat
Sconby hopefully the price is due to a short roast party.
Any thoughts on the volume today and the price spike towards the end of the day?
Monterey2000 - Thanks for posting this.
Sammdogg1 - Thanks for posting this, much appreciated.
Vegas ..it has nothing to do with anybody In particular.. as convertibles come into the money....they become in the money options...and are subject to the options community's money machine....see ...susquehanna!!
scooby5, IDCC can not buy in the first 30 minutes or the last 10 minutes. They are limited to a maximum of 25% of the average share count.
Who decides when Idcc is actively buying back shares on any given day? Is there a limit to the number of shares per day?
I like the playing field better in the UK. However, even the PTAB poured Tesla out recently in its challenge of another company's patent. Musk claims Tesla patents are free and open to the public and everyone should allow his use for free.
MO
loop
teecee56, I do not. In order for Goldman ( or their client) to claim $1.5B investment in their #10 stock they have to own all the converts and warrants along with the 420K shares. Why would you short against your position and not just sell your shares? The 2024 warrants will cost them $109.49 each. Why would you try to make them worthless? I believe their customer would not be allowed to buy IDCC so this has been a long term play to have less than 50% yet have passive control. We will know by August at the latest as whoever has the 2024 converts and warrants will have to file as a 10% owner.
Followers
|
879
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
432756
|
Created
|
01/05/02
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
The principle objective of the iHub message boards is to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio while encouraging the exchange of all points of view. Moderators are an important part of making our message boards beneficial to all participants and readers. Moderating a stock-specific board, particularly those which are controversial due to many divergent perspectives or newsworthy events, can be a challenging and time consuming role. The time and effort expended by our Members who volunteer their time to fulfill this valuable role is greatly appreciated and our Moderators should be treated with the respect they deserve for donating their time and efforts to the collective benefit of our community. Company-specific boards are the lifeblood of iHub. The Moderators' role is simple to define for company-specific boards:
To promote the civil exchange of on-topic dialog that complies with the Investors Hub Terms of Service. |
It is no accident that neither the above definition nor the Terms of Service makes mention of investment sentiment, shareholder interests, or considerations such as "the good of the company." That is because the TOS are blind to investment sentiment. In order to be a successful Moderator and conduct a board within the scope of iHub's TOS, it is critical that Moderators distinguish their role and privileges as Moderator from their role and privileges as a posting Member. That is often easier said than done, particularly on active boards with both the typical and atypical controversy.
If a post does not fit into any of these categories the post must not be removed.
Some posts fall into a "gray" area and are borderline depending upon the way they are read. As inclusion is favored over exclusion, please err or the side of not removing posts if they are not clear violations. Please use the "Report TOS Violation" button at the bottom of the post with your comments if the post is not egregious in nature and Site Admins will review the message.
Bottom line: Please use your best judgment in removing posts based on the above guidelines and let us know if you have any questions or need any help. And keep in mind that post removal and non-removal have to be given the same emphasis. It is not permissible, for example, to remove a post that calls someone a "pumper" while not also removing a post that calls someone a "basher". Investor sentiment, including your own, can NOT be part of the removal/non-removal decision.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |