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.
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.
Wow, old timer! Bill you were a font of information, and a well of inspiration for so many years on these boards. Good to hear from you. God bless you.
May God bless you Mickey. You were a raging force on the IDCC boards over the years. May God help us as well. I am saddened.
Jim, where did it all go, from prodigy to netscape, to yahoo, to raging bull to I can't even remember. Where is everyone? Where did the best board around go?
John,
I will miss you. Many nice things have already been said, and I nodded my head as I read them. I appreciate your earnest estimations, your honesty and civility, patience, and good will to all. You have got to be a great guy.Best luck to you. May God bless you.
Is the range enough for shorts? We were doing that 80 to 85. Maybe then.
Lately, it's been back and forth within 2 points.
Somebody is accumulating patiently.
So what do you make of it? I was thinking company buyback is picking up loose shares and maintaining share price.
This is where I think we get bought out if it's going to be anyone. They're looking for 5G tech beyond phones
Samsung to Spend Over $22 Billion on AI, Auto Tech and 5G https://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-to-spend-over-22-billion-on-ai-auto-tech-and-5g-1533704403
It is nice we stay stable on a down day, but what is up with 80?!!
Haunted by it.
Gamco,
Can you explain what this P&F might indicate? Is it significant?
Thank you
Lots of Form 4's out yesterday. Every one I looked at was an acquisition.
If I remember correctly we had some research connection with NYU years back, around the same time we were working with McGill University in Montreal.
John, this is a "wow" story. It could be a road map for IDCC. Just as compelling it could set us as in the spotlight in this area.
Thank you. Nice find. Sheds more light on this Technicolor romance.
Well there's a smile. God bless you. Hope you are as happy as you sound. Miss you around these parts.
What's your feelings on earnings Jim?
Broadcom makes chips, chipsets. That's not what they're after.
Thanks for the big picture Loop. Been a long ride from those 40 engineers in a tiny office in King of Prussia.
And you, like a broken record, spew the same monotonous negative comments, and never add any information to the board.
How dare you criticize M3S? He constantly adds value, for 20 years or more
Thank you John. You speak for many of us. It's no fun listening to the same person whine about the same thing each and every post.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/14377292/1/successful-completion-of-innovateuk-integrated-transport-project-300-datasets-11-partners-and-9-global-awards.html
Chordant is owned by IDCC. This is an IDCC Europe project.
Thank you, an excellent post that gives me hope that the decision will be fair, in our favor or not.
Good luck dmiller. Hope it passes you, and others, without damage.
OD Glad you gave him the "short" answer. Go Interdig.
Beautifully written
Thank you eom
What does this mean for IDCC? I don't think we are the type of company this bill targets; but will this bill have a negative residual effect on us?
Thanks,
Sammdogg
We're on all the standards committees
Voting Shares Article from NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/06money.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=print
Voting Your Shares May Start to Matter
By TARA SIEGEL BERNARD
What would happen if all the small investors banded together and cast their ballots during proxy season, the time of year when all shareholders get to vote on corporate issues? How much of an impact would they have?
Until recently, the votes of small investors — the ones who didn’t just throw their ballots in the trash — were largely meaningless. Even if they were angry about soaring executive pay and risky business practices, there was little they could do.
Sure, in theory, investors could vote for the people who serve on the board, many of whom are paid handsomely to oversee management and set executive pay. But investors don’t have any say on the nominees. Nor do they have much of a real choice even if they do vote. Say you withhold a vote for a candidate running uncontested. It doesn’t matter, since directors can win without a majority.
And if you chose not to vote? Your broker is allowed to cast your ballot without your permission, and brokers typically vote in line with management.
“Up until now, it’s been sort of a Soviet system,” said Stephen Davis, executive director of the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance at the Yale School of Management. “We have been operating in the United States under the myth that boards have been accountable to shareholders.”
So much for shareholder democracy.
But the tide is beginning to turn, albeit slightly. In recent years, more companies have adopted a “majority rules” requirement, meaning a single vote can no longer elect the entire board, even if all other votes are withheld (though some companies retain the power to reinstate directors). And starting this year, brokers can no longer vote shares held in their customers’ accounts without permission.
On top of that, more voter resources are beginning to sprout on the Web that aim to educate smaller investors, demystify the issues on the ballot and make voting easier.
Investors would also stand to benefit from the so-called Shareholder Bill of Rights, legislation proposed by Senator Charles Schumer of New York and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, both Democrats, most of which was included in the original draft of Senator Christopher Dodd’s financial overhaul bill. But like many other consumer-friendly measures — including a freestanding consumer protection agency — it has faced sharp opposition from some Republicans and business groups and may not survive.
One provision that has particularly provoked opponents would make it easier for certain investors to nominate independent directors to corporate boards, or what is known as proxy access.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is also pushing the issue, and, after several years of debate, is expected to adopt rules this year. Those rules would require companies to include the shareholders’ nominees in their proxy materials, whereas now investors are forced to pay for their own campaigns.
(The proposed rules would allow only those who own at least 1 percent of shares at large companies to nominate directors, as long as those directors fill under 25 percent of the board seats.)
The Senate proposal would require that candidates for director receive at least half the vote in an uncontested election and require all directors to face re-election annually (unless shareholders approve otherwise). It would also give shareholders a so-called say on pay, which is a nonbinding vote on executive compensation practices.
More companies are beginning to do this voluntarily, and corporate governance experts say these votes can actually help curb excessive pay.
“The pressure is really on Chris Dodd as to whether the accountability provisions in the Shareholder Bill of Rights turn out in the final bill,” said Mr. Davis, of the corporate governance center at Yale.
Let’s assume the worst for a moment, and most of the provisions in the Senate bill are whittled down to nothing. How much power do small investors have right now?
Collectively, they own about 30 percent of outstanding shares. They hold a much larger stake when you consider their holdings in pensions and mutual funds. But since investors technically own shares of mutual funds and not their underlying investments, the fund companies cast the ballots. As you may imagine, many of them do a poor job.
Still, only a small fraction of retail investors vote. And no wonder — we’re busy, we think our votes don’t matter, and we don’t have the time to become experts on corporate governance. Yet experts say small investors hold enough shares to move the needle, at least on some issues.
“Thirty percent of outstanding shares is a substantial portion, easily enough to change the outcome of many proxy voting results,” said Mark Latham, a member of the S.E.C.’s investor advisory committee.
Michael Passoff, an associate director at As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy group on environmental issues, has first-hand experience. “There have been many successes shareholders have had in changing corporate policies or practices,” he said. “You can imagine virtually all retail shareholders supporting resolutions that would limit or link executive pay to performance.”
How much mental energy is required to vote intelligently? Thankfully, it’s getting easier. Here are some shortcuts:
THE BASICS If you own stocks, you’ll probably receive proxy materials — the company’s annual report, a proxy statement and a proxy card/voting form — in the mail or via e-mail. You can vote by mail, by phone, on the Web or, if you’re so inclined, you can show up at the annual meeting, where, at the very least, you’ll probably encounter some colorful gadflies.
FOR STOCK HOLDERS Nell Minow, editor and co-founder of the Corporate Library, an independent, corporate governance research firm, offered a few tips on how to vote any proxy in two minutes or less. “You want to look at three things,” she said. Do the directors own company stock? Do they attend more than 75 percent of the meetings? And do they do business with the company? All this information, she says, is available on a chart on the proxy statement. To find whether directors have side deals with the company, she said to look in the “related party transactions box.”
“If they don’t go to meetings, don’t vote for them,” she said. “If they don’t own stock, don’t vote for them.”
If there are any shareholder proposals, Ms. Minow recommends finding out how others are voting, including activists in causes you believe in or institutional shareholders like TIAA-CREF or Calpers, which have reputations for voting independently.
And if the proxy has too many shareholder proposals, “withhold your vote for the entire board,” Ms. Minow said. “Any board that is not engaging with its shareholders to try and negotiate some of its proposals needs to be reminded who they work for.”
MUTUAL FUNDS HOLDERS Since investors have less of a direct impact on their mutual funds’ votes, it is important to hold the fund companies accountable for the way they vote their proxies.
“The biggest thing you can do is find a better mutual fund,” said Mr. Latham, who is also a director at ProxyDemocracy.org, which provides information on how mutual funds vote and other tools. “If you are in a Standard & Poor’s 500 index fund, there are many S.& P. 500 funds. But some vote better than others, and that is the biggest leverage you have.”
GETTING EDUCATED These are still early days, but various organizations that cater to retail investors have sprung up on the Web to help individuals essentially outsource their voting decisions to institutions or activists they trust. In addition to ProxyDemocracy.org, there are also sites like Shareowners.org. None has gone as far as Moxy Vote, a Web site that was started in November and aims to educate investors and simplify the voting process.
It allows investors to view advocates’ positions — 30 activists currently participate — to see where they stand on the issues. Investors can have their proxies delivered to Moxy Vote and then vote directly from the site. They can also automate the process so that, say, they always vote in line with their favorite advocate.
“We are trying to do something that has been never been done before, and that is to rally the retail vote,” said Doug Gates, vice president of marketing at Moxy Vote. “We want to bring some illumination to that process and empower small shareholders to effect change.”
Harry put this company on his back in mid nineties and carried it to a better place. He was always passionate about IDCC and a kind, approachable man. May God bless him.
I never said IDCC said $1 per phone. That was my take based on conversations about the matrix. Their response was saying that it is a complex process involving who is using what and how it is being used. They didn't dispute a question/comment implying $1, not did they affirm it.
ASM
ASM report . Most sparsely attended affair in quite a while; probably more IDCC employees than anyone else. Stock incentive plan passed with 70% of shares in favor.
Harry declared IDCC is in the best shape we’ve ever been. There was a new slide show that they will use in a UBS presentation next week. Samsung signing highlighted 2008 with Harry saying that Samsung saw what we had and paid 400 million. That they are tough to deal with and just don’t give money away.
We had 136 patents granted in 2008 and 608 more applied for putting us at 140th on 2008 PTO list.
The companies initiatives will be in the areas of security, developing a network for networks,and seamless connectivity.
There is a balance of 141.7 million in the company’s coffers which later led to discussion about dividends and value to shareholders. Harry said dividends are under careful scrutiny, that buybacks add shareholder value, and that the company needs to conserve capital in case of acquisitions. Harry mentioned that they have a team that only works on M&A.
2009 objectives are to be getting into anything wireless, not just handhelds, developing “leapfrog” wireless, looking to sign “machine to machine” new entrants. The market is going from people to people connectivity to people to machine or machine to machine.
From the Q and A segment: The Lucas Library approach wasn’t a surprise to them. Nokia said it was available , IDCC says it wasn’t. The issue at the ITC comes down to validity. The Samsung agreement gave clarity to rate discussions with other manufacturers. There were discussions about the matrix complexities and I sensed that $1 per device seems like an acceptable measure. Merritt said future company matrixes would try to make understanding clearer.
He also said items like that Kindle are game changers, a precursor of what’s to come. More data devices than voice. He said that have a disciplined plan for pursuing agreements after 2012. Some negotiations take longer than others.
The company was defensive about the chip production saying that although they didn’t sell much hardware, they made good contacts, got access to other companies road maps, and developed new patents because of it.
Merritt on China: We have good contacts. Our initial move was product based and we have patents there. Enforcement of patents in China is another issue. As Chinese companies start to sell outside of China, then IP deals will get done.
Apple is not a 10%contributer as of the last quarter. Listings are quarterly. Currently the list includes Samsung, NEC, andSharp.
Questions about Nokia not having an operator network to sell their new phone yielded info that some operators tell some manufacters to liscense with IDCC before they will take their phones to sell. The operators don’t want to deal with IDCC. Merritt said technology keeps advancing and is built upon previo0us layers of tech, providing opportunity for IDCC.
Brian Kiernan said that we’re 3=5 years ahead of the market. For instance LTE is coming into fore a s operators build out systems and we’re all over LTE standards.
My overall feeling is one of confidence, a quieter, more solid confidence. As if it’s not a question of success, but only when. This contrasted to the past few years where it seemed euphoric that we made it to the top of the mountain. This year we’ve been on the top of the mountain for a year and it’s old hat, we comfortably belong.
When asked about the trial, BM said that being in the first trial was more advantageous for us than for Nokia watching it. He used the analogy of someone actually driving somewhere as opposed to being a passenger on the same trip. You get a lot more out of it when you’re doing the driving.
I think IDCC felt that they made their case at the ITC. That they were heard.
I’m sure other’s will add to this.
Sounds like you're feeling a little nervous? The Feds usually let the little fish flounder a bit until they need them to make a case.
I too, for the same reason, voted my shares against. eom
He's like the minor league phenom who disappoints year after year in the bigs. The potential for a useful post is there but he just can't do it when it counts.
You wrote that Idcc hasn't done well vs. the Dow. When I questioned it you replied that you meant only over the past two days. Now today you say that the day to day share price doesn't matter to you.
If it doesn't then why did you post as if it does. You constanly babble and spin. Do you not have a conscience?
Funny, wasn't it you who was going on about the IDCC share price vs. the Dow over two days last week, the day before earnings. Here's the quote:
"Sammdogg... Obviously my post was taking into consideration the last 2 days with the idcc and dow comments."
Where's Nicmar and his ilk today? EOM
IDCC has outperformed the Dow over the past 3 and 6 months, but of course you disingeniously overlooked that. Why are all your messages designed to denigrate IDCC?
Assuming the company understands this, what would be reasons for a buyback? Are we simply undervalued, thus a good buy; or can it be positioning idcc for takeover after Nokia is resolved?
Naturally, for one in the brick business. How's the kiln? eom
IMO We have to be close on Samsung. I opine that we don't see the ITC. I think this because of the pregnant delays in both the Arbitration and the NY court decisions which may indicate that both know that serious negotiations are in place which may render their actions unnecessary, the comment by WM that "economic negotiations" we're completed with some unnamed, and the fact that it's the middle of Novenber and 12/31 is closing fast. Just have a feel here. Good luck to all longs.