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.
Corp_Buyer, why do you believe Nokia's request that the documents relating to the IDCC/Ericsson agreement are unsealed is an outrageous request? After all, if any Nokia payments are to be based on the Ericsson agreement, and Nokia and IDCC have a dispute about that, wouldn't it make perfect sense to uncover all the secret stuff and just look at it in the open like real men? What is IDCC so afraid of? What's in the Ericsson agreement that IDCC doesn't want uncovered? If IDCC is the straightforward and honorable company that many portray them to be, then why would they try so hard to keep the Ericsson agreement secret?
It doesn't smell right to me.
Once
If IDCC were to ask for an extension they would have done it by now because they would need to ask the court for an extension with enough time hear the courts response and still file on time should the court deny the request for an extension. The fact that they haven't asked for an extension yet indicates they plan to get the papers on the court clerks desk by the close of business today.
I was just pointing out the very small (but very real) risk that, for one reason or another, the papers do not physically make it to the court in time. Anyone in the legal business has heard plenty of last minute filing horror stories and potential problems are not just limited to traffic jams. I would hate to guess what the share price would do in the morning if this happened.
Just to be clear, I fully expect IDCC will file by the deadline but anyone holding IDCC should be aware of the very small (but very real) risk that things will go awry.
Once
Sjratty, while I fully expect IDCC will file by the deadline there is no guarantee they will. It's a very small risk but one that anyone holding IDCC should be aware of because of the drastic effect it would have on the share price if they miss the deadline. Anyone who has been in the legal business for long will have a horror story or two about a filing that, for one reason or another, never made it to the court clerk by the deadline.
Once
This is interesting:
" But they were in the lab and the hustler was out doing his thing. Buying patents faster than the engineers could invent things and rushing off to court to fight giants with anybody he found for cheap to provide counsel.
That was then. Those players are gone from KOP now."
I'm not surprised you think the lawyers in KOP have changed the game they play. However, there's not much evidence to support that view. Most of it is simply claims from IDCC management that they invented lots of cool stuff. But those claims have been IDCC's mode of operation long before most people here acquired their first share of IDC.
Then there are the IDCC hypesters who talk techno-bable as if they are actually qualified to determine if a particular patent is applicable to certain standards. I recommend those claims are dismissed as hype. It's simply impossible for a laymen to have any idea whether those patents will hold up to stiff legal scrutiny.
Most telling is that everytime IDCC gets close to being able to prove the essentiality of their IPR to a major wireless standard, IDCC backs down the last minute and settles for pennies on the dollar. I don't think this is due to weak management but to very crafty management who knows what will likely happen if they push their wobbly IPR too far. IDCC is like a house of cards. It gets built up until a little wind starts to blow and then it collapses again. Step back and look at the big picture.
3G will be no different at all because the claims that IDCC is all about 3G is just more hot air.
Once
I don't know why anyone believed this:
"Ziploc; this is a good issue to explore. In addition, because of the 1999 agreement, there's always been the presumption (by me included) that NOK and IDCC had/has a great relationship and that NOK accepted all IDCC's IPR."
I have been pointing out for over two years that the Nokia/IDCC agreement didn't mean squat, that it was all a ruse for appearances sake since a royalty rate was not defined. That was without a doubt and yet most IDCC longs continued to ridicule me as if I didn't know what I was talking about.
The lesson here is that if there is no rational ammunition on one side of the argument, that argument is a fallacy designed to deceive.
Once
That's not an observation, it's a question. I think the answer to which is "No".
mschere: great observation!
"...Should not Nokia/Samsung third quarter 2003 GROSS royalty due IDCC be 8X-10X that of Sony/Ericsson third Quarter net Royalty payments?"
Once
Lawyers do not worry about "shadows of impropriety", they worry about conviction.
"According to his bio, HG did a stint at the SEC. I doubt he would be foolish enough to cast a shadow of impropriety around himself."
I agree, he is likely using his knowledge and experience to work the money pump for all it's worth without actually ending up in jail. But the more often the legal line is pushed to the limit, the higher the chance that things will turn out unhappy.
Once
That deduction doesn't pass muster with my rationality sniffer:
"I think the IDCC motion to be filed by the 25th will be devastating to the trashy motion Nokia filed. Why take all of this time if the reply is not going to decimate the issues raised by Nok."
If IDCC has no good response don't you think they might delay and wait till the last minute?
If IDCC could easily "decimate" the issues raised by Nokia, wouldn't IDCC want to get it out ASAP?
Your analysis is the exact opposite of a rational interpretation.
Once
There's no evidence the judge or Nokia is asleep:
"It would be great if IDCC and Ericy filed a joint oppositon motion to Nok's motion to have the files unsealed. To me this would be another wake up call to Nok and the Judge.
"
Why do you think they need to wake up? I'm curious why so many IDCC investors are against the unsealing of the files? Afraid what we might find? I thought a free flow of information was a good thing. What's so top secret about the Ericsson license anyway?
Once
For cryin' out loud, who wouldn't buy at 1/3 the current market value?
"Joe, If I'm not mistaken, he'll now own 84,000 shares.
Was this buy due to expiring options? If not, particularly bullish IMO."
Saying that's a bullish sign is like saying the insiders must be bullish on IDCC because they keep awarding themselves performance bonuses, LOL!
Once
You absolutely are off base with that statement:
"I may be completely of base with this statement but (IMHO), if a certain Mr. I Jacobs had been faced with this exact same set of circumstances, there would have been a flurry of press releases to announce this event rather than just one. After ERICY, the IDCC muzzle is off, the communication impediment lifted!"
Irwin Jacobs has never attached an estimated dollar amount to new licensees. In my opinion that is very distasteful and irresponsible. Qualcomm always announced their new licensees in the most general of terms,ie something like, "a multi-million dollar license fee with on-going royalties at the usual rate irrespective of the standard licensed."
If the muzzle really did fall off of IDCC, someone better strap it back on before the shareholder lawsuits start happening.
Once
Spider69, someone deleted all the old IDCC posts on RB, most are probably thankful for the mercy of having all those embarrassing posts eliminated. However, I believe in having a continuous history of previous posts available for those who wish to research the historical accuracy of a certain poster or the origin of a particular concept or belief, therefor I find the practice of deleting old posts a real disservice to diligent investors.
"Sail, that was one of the most classic posts of alltime, I believe it was on the RB board. If someone still has that post it would be a great repost for old times sake."
Think of all the history we have lost, I doubt ihub would delete posts as recently as a year or so ago.
Once
Jim, thanks for the Deutshe Bank report. It's a real eye-opener to anyone who didn't believe my early warnings that WCDMA would have a lot of technical issues that would take a long time to iron out. That's because of all the "contributors" and the fact that the standards bodies are slow, inefficient and often have ulterior motives.
At least Qualcomm is rolling out the 3G technology they believe is optimized for the market and they are doing so on schedule and without major problems. This is a great positive for IDCC if they really do get CDMA2000 royalties from all the manufacturers but that's looking less and less likely as CDMA2000 roll-outs continue without new license agreements.
This WCDMA delay wouldn't be so bad for IDCC since it extends the sales of GSM and TDMA equipment but the $34 million IDCC got from Ericsson for a decade of alleged infringement does not seem too lucrative. And if Nokia is balking at even that tiny sum, well, I think the picture is obvious. If only all the manufacturers would just pinch their noses, look off to the side and hold the pen straight out in front while they sign on the dotted line. Of course that's not looking like it will happen anytime soon.
Once
Actually, the IDCC Clubhouse at RB is the only place they can get away from me. They have loosened up their membership rules a bit over there in the last year, now they even tolerate a limited amount of IDCC naysaying but they hold a grudge against me, not sure why, they say it's because I don't post enough positive stuff about IDCC.
But I'll be darned if I'm going to compromise my views to suit their fantasy. Why should I? Oh, that's right, for the ability to post in the stone age.
Once
How much does the new Tantivy facility cost to run per year?
It would seem that any analyst who wants to follow IDCC would need to know this figure so it could be accounted for in the EPS estimate.
Once
Cheerleading will not get you where you want to go.
"Smart investors have concluded that Nokia and Samsung will pay IDCC a lot of money when arbitration is over. The panic and disappointment is over. The only question is when and how much. We are back on track. We need another licensing deal to reestablish momentum. Say goodbye to 16 and hello to 20. JMVHO"
Once
Estoppel has nothing to do with the arbitration for the reason I've outlined below the italicised quote:
"There is something in the law called collateral estoppel. What this means is that if an issue was litigated by parties in a previous litigation and the interests of the parties were identical then that issue is estopped from being litigated again by a party with an identical interest of the losing party. So what might be happening here is that IDCC won the issue of their patent over the Ericsonn party in the prior case and now Nokia whose interest may be identical to Ericsonn's as to the validity of IDCC's patent. If so, the arbitration may simply be to determine the amount Nokia owes under the IDCC patent."
Nope, remember, IDCC settled with Ericsson, they didn't win their patent lawsuit. And because the settlement amount was so little for all those years of alleged infringement, it doesn't tell us that IDCC has a strong case for 2G infringement. The battle for 3G royalties is a separate task for IDCC, one that they are behind the curve on considering that 3G is rolling out as we speak and the number and size of IDCC's 3G license list is woefully small.
"That may be why it is in arbitration rather than in court. If they were contesting IDCC's patent rights I would think that would be in court. Since it is not, I thinkt the battle will be the amount owed, not wheter the patent rights are valid. That's just my opinion and I might be wrong!"
Yes, in this case you are wrong. The battle isn't even the amount owed, it's whether the Ericsson settlement triggers payment obligations under the contract IDCC has with Nokia. Nokia claims it does not and no payment is due. If you want to characterize that as "how much is due" then fine but Nokia is contending they don't have to pay anything to IDCC due to the Ericsson settlement. Whether the patents are valid might not even enter in to it.
Too bad we don't actually have access to the Nokia/IDCC agreement that management told us was a slam dunk but from what we can see I don't think it looks that good.
Once
It seems IDCC has two deadlines for filing legal rebuttals. August 17th and August 25th. Since August 17th falls on a Sunday does that mean the filing is due on the previous business day or the next business day? Hopefully the latter since we haven't seen anything yet.
Another sign that IDCC's IPR is not as strong as many believe is that IDCC is always filing court papers defensively. Even with the Motorola suit way back in 1995 IDCC did not file until AFTER Motorola did. Just one more clue of many, don't ignore them.
Once
This is the worst possible thing that could happen to IDCC shareholders:
"Let's bust their ass in court to force a little sunshine up their game. Let's show everybody that patent royalties in the U.S. are uniformly based on their contribution value in proportion to the product application. That we do not tolerate bully tactics when it comes to patents, and that our own house is an example.
"
The fact that IDCC has not yet done this (and likely never will) is because they don't have very strong IPR. If it's not clear to you by now than you will probably die believing that IDCC really got shafted.
I can't believe a loyal IDCC shareholder would suggest a tactic that would favor Qualcomm so much.
Once
You are completely wrong about indemnification:
"As far as number 4, it is a non-issue. They have discussed it the recent CC; just part of the licensing negitiation delaying technigue. Don't let the short here scare you on this issue."
If it was a non-issue management would not have felt obligated to report the event to shareholders as being material! Now you are claiming it isn't material?
Additionally, this speaks volumes about the strength (or lack thereof) of IDCC's CDMA IPR. Who in their right mind would take responsibility for any infringement of IDCC's IPR if IDCC really had a good case that their IPR was essential? Successful investors do not stick their head in the sand when it comes to such important clues.
Once
IDCC should take a lesson from Qualcomm (if it really does have essential IPR:
"A bunch of very nasty bullys is threatening our IDCC investment right now. We know who they are. We know they do not want to pay. We know that they are attempting to change the rules on 3G IPR licensing after they got everything they needed."
I simply do not understand why IDCC doesn't just say "The rate is x percent. Pay now or it's going to cost you x percent plus court costs." That's what Qualcomm did with their CDMA IPR (the rate is around 4-5%) and no one is infringing (everyone is paying). If a manufacturer tried to pretend like they didn't need to pay, Qualcomm would start to prepare a suit. As far as I know, there has never been any significant infringement of Qualcomm's patents and they didn't need to draw up sneaky little lawyer contracts whereby the rate would be set in the future by another manufacturers contract. Nope. Qualcomm said the rate is x% and if we ever offer a more favorable contract to another manufacturer, then we will also offer it to you. Now sign on the dotted line before you sell your wares. That's how Qualcomm does it and, remember, Qualcomm was a small company in the 1990's also and that's how they did it then also. The fact that IDCC does not take such a straightforward approach indicates their IPR is fundamentally different from those who take an easier road to licensing their IPR.
Interdigital has been around much longer than Qualcomm and yet they are still playing lawyer games when it's time to sign up licensees. Many of you would like to blame it on poor management but I suggest to you that (like I have been saying for 4 years now) that their IPR is not nearly as strong as many claim. This includes claims by management that they "believe" their IPR is essential. The proof is in the licenses (or lack of them). So, you can continue to blame management and claim that poor management is costing IDCC billions of dollars or you can wake up and smell the roses and realize that IDCC is just a little "me too" company trying to squeeze maximum mileage out of very questionable IPR.
I can only fault management for two things:
Excessive compensation and helping create a disconnect between investors expectations and reality. Other than that I think they do a fine job of maximizing the value of their IPR. It's a dirty job and no one has to do it (to the extreme extent they do) but I imagine the greedy little bastards thought it was better than working in a "regular" corporation.
My analysis of this situation has always made good sense but as time marches on it is becoming more and more obvious what is going on here. Don't get stuck with tunnel vision.
Once
Bulldzr, I wouldn't worry about the $28 million out insurance carrier wants. I predict IDCC gets it reduced to a much more manageable number, perhaps as low as $5-$8 million total.
But it does look like some form of the golden rule is being applied here, bully others and they will bully you.
Once
You are missing the main point of those who cry foul of the insider selling (including the first analyst to ask a question during the quarterly conference call).
"If Nokia had accepted the 2G rate set by terms of the Settlement and not asked for arbitration (which Management clearly expected to be the likeliest result), IDCC would be trading at twice or more the current share price. It could then be said that "insiders" were selling BELOW the ascending share price for almost the entire past year."
Nokia did not accept that the Ericsson agreement defined the rate they would pay. The analyst who asked the question about insider selling made it clear that the concern was that management may have been tipped off during the license negotiations that Nokia was not seeing it IDCC's way and decided to unload some of their shares before that information was official and public.
And when you think about it, it's pretty obvious management must have known that Nokia did not see the Ericsson agreement as defining their royalty obligations or else the negotiations wouldn't have taken so long. If there was no disagreement there would be no need for protracted negotiations. Remember, over a year ago IDCC management characterized the Nokia agreement as being very definite, not wishy-washy.
So your scenario whereby Nokia did agree to the Ericy rate is completely irrelevant because if they had agreed, there would be no charges of insider selling before the bad news was made public (because there wouldn't be any bad news).
Once
Good observation:
"You remind me of someone who makes a bet based upon the flipping of a coin as follows. Every time the coin is flipped, you say "it will come up tails". A thousand flips later, you have said "tails" every time."
But you forgot two things, first, I don't offer a negative view on everything, only those things that I feel will end up negative. For example, you never heard me say that IDCC won't get new licensees, just that those new licensees won't be as lucrative as predicted. Secondly, out of those 1000 flips where I called tails on IDCC I've been right approx. 995 times.
One thing I was wrong on was I was sure proposition 2 (authorizing more shares for options) would pass but it failed by a wide margin. I was really surprised at that one. I guess IDCC shareholders finally were fed up.
Once
That's a very good point:
"I’m not sure if heat from investors does much good with this company’s management."
Can you imagine telling a drug dealer that he is setting a bad example for children or a bank robber that he's making it hard for shareholders to realize a profit in the company that insures the banks or telling Yogi Bear that campers may go hungry if he steals their steak off the grill?
Guess what, that's not how this type of behavior is brought under control. The only answer is to get rid of the scoundrels. Once they have tasted the money you can't rehabilitate them.
Once
Sophist, Data understands what he's talking about better than you can even imagine. He did not say the Tantivy purchase was a waste of money, he said I-CDMA is not likely to go anywhere (in so many words). That is supported by the fact that investors who spent over $70 million on the development effort are willing to let it go for so little.
It couldn't be much more clear than that.
Once
I'm already treading on thin ice around here and that's the kind of information that may not be welcome here.
"I was not aware that Nokia commented on IDCC insider sales in a recent filing. Can you post a link? TIA"
I think a post that linked to that document was already deleted so you had better ask Jim if it's OK to re-post. I know this is not the type of IDCC discussion that is encouraged.
Once
Jim, I was under the impression that Nokia is claiming that the Ericsson agreement does not trigger ANY royalty for them. So, in effect, they are protesting the event that IDCC is claiming triggered the royalty as well as the royalty amount.
Once
Re: Share buyback program:
Does anyone recall management stating what is the upper price limit for this buyback program? I remember the previous buyback was limited to buying shares priced under $10/share. If I recall, all shares were repurchased under that price, much to the chagrin of long-term shareholders who thought the share buyback would push the price up.
It would seem there is a certain risk of management wanting the price to stay low during the buyback period to assure enough company owned shares for insider options.
Once
I'm not so sure:
"If that happened it would be on page one and when IDCC was proven innocent the retraction would be on page 99."
Why do you immediately assume that IDCC insiders would be found innocent? Let's look at some of the facts:
1) We don't know what was transpiring with the Nokia license negotiations immediately before the insider selling.
2) Nokia knows every word that transpired during those license negotiations and the day it was spoken.
3) Nokia has access to the insider selling records, same as us.
4) Nokia thought it was significant enough to detail the sales in their recent filing.
5) This one is not a fact, just speculation. I'm guessing the lawyer that told them it was o.k. to sell was not at the Nokia negotiations but formed his opinion by asking the negotiation team what went on during the negotiations. I can see Howard and the others squirming in their seats and trying to answer the questions in a way that will allow their general council to decide their insider trading window is still open.
Even if the attorney was present at all the license negotiations, that doesn't mean that he wasn't wrong when he told the insiders they could still sell.
Given the above four facts, facts, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about the innocence of the insiders. I don't think Nokia would even mention such serious charges unless specific things were said during license negotiations that would cause any selling after that date to be considered insider trading.
If insider trading did happen that would open the door for massive shareholder lawsuits. It's just one more risk of investing in a company that has a questionable history and timing when it comes to option grants and insider selling.
In my opinion, either they are guilty or they all just have the natural luck of the Irish. How else could you explain their uncanny ability to sell at the top?
Once
Yes, investors invested over $70 million into Tantivy but just a few years later the entire business was only worth around $10 million. What a waste. I think they were lucky to find a buyer for that amount considering they had no successful products, no one showed any interest in commercializing any of their technology and they had no royalty income.
Once
RTD, you can only send private messages if you pay for a membership. Everyone gets to receive them though.
Once
One other fact, on IDCC's website, they list Nokia as being a licensee of all the major 2G and 3G standards:
http://www.interdigital.com/tech_products_licensing.shtml
(click the link near the bottom labeled "here" to see the licenses)
I think it's awfully presumptuous of management to list Nokia when they are actually in arbitration over this very issue. And if you look carefully you will see that not even all products of the standards that are checked are necessarily licensed. IDCC claims "A number of these licenses are subject to various significant limitations including, for example, the patents and products covered by the license." Whatever that means.
Once
Ricardo, good questions:
"Why is everyone so afraid of arbitration with Nokia? If the bruising court battle with Ericsonn and Sony led to a recognition of the patents of IDCC, why would these same patents not be valid with Nokia? "
First, you need to recall that the much heralded IDCC/Ericsson license agreement only covers standards based on TDMA technologies. No W-CDMA or CDMA2000 technologies. That's right, so far Ericsson has refused to license with IDCC for any of the 3G standards! The licensed technologies are being phased out as 3G is being phased in so, IMO, the IDCC/Ericsson license is too little, too late. Can you believe only $34 million for a decade or more of infringement? And now Nokia's announcement that they are going into arbitration rather than paying up is strong evidence that Nokia believes Ericsson over-paid.
So that's why arbitration is such bad news. I can't believe some try to turn it into a positive.
Once
Jim, not to worry:
"He yanked TeeCee's chain and you tell me who won the battle?
Who left town?"
Mark my words, they will back. It's not a matter of if, it's when.
Same thing with the Nokia/IDCC arbitration. It will be settled, not a matter of if, just when (and how). In my opinion, IDCC will settle for pennies on the dollar again. It's the most logical conclusion based on the outcome of IDCC's other patent disputes going back the last 10 years. If you want any specifics I can dig some up.
Once
Nice thought:
"How about the "external resources" being our government representatives from Pennsylvania putting some pressure on the big foreign bully against our little U.S. company?"
But it doesn't pass the rationality test. Before our government could get involved it would have to be shown that infringement is taking place. That hasn't been demonstrated and yet people often forget that important fact.
All we have is management saying they "believe" their IPR is embedded in the standards, no one knows whether it's true or not. Without a court judgement that infringement is taking place, our government would look ridiculous getting involved. It's IDCC's word against theirs. That won't change unless the manufacturers have a change of heart or IDCC files suit (and prevails).
Once
I'm not so sure for a couple of reasons:
"They clearly stated it wouldn't be solved until later than when they sold and also clearly said it could go to arb and if so would not be resolved till next year. That doesn't mean they can't sell till next year. They have they're windows to sell/buy."
If you recall, management said arbitration was a possibility but they were confident that wouldn't be necessary. At some point during the Nokia talks it must have become obvious they had problems. Secondly, the whole reason that management can only sell during narrow windows is so management doesn't have an unfair advantage over individual buyers/sellers of public companies. Given the importance of Nokia, I don't see how management could consider that the Nokia discussions did not close their trading window. After all, these "windows" are not fixed in time, they are moving windows as created by various events, including license negotiations.
It sounds disingenuous to emphasize the limited selling windows but then to pretend like the Nokia negotiations did not impact these windows. If I had been blindsided by the announcement of arbitration and subsequent price fall while management had just sold at the top, I would be ready to join a class action lawsuit. That's what they are there for. Unfortunately, IDCC investors as a whole are too forgiving to take management on.
Once
Does anyone think the share buyback announcement is related to the defeat of proposition 2 at the last shareholder election?
Where else are the insiders going to get all those lucrative options they like to award themselves? I had a little daydream:
Howard: Well, it looks like the shareholders are on to us. They've dammed up the river of options that we divert into our personal accounts.
Harry: Not so quick, Quicksilver, we'll just award ourselves some nice raises if there aren't enough options to go around! Remember who's in charge of this ship.
Howard: I don't know, that will really get the shareholders screaming, we've been doing pretty good with the options and whoever thought of hiring that consultant to determine comparable industry wages was brilliant! It's pretty hard for them to argue with that unless they commission their own study. But giving us raises beyond that is asking for trouble. The beauty of options is the way we are able to maximize the value of them by using the volatility of our shares as a value multiplier. If only shareholders had authorized the issue of more we would all be retiring before the shareholders find out what a charade we've been running!
Harry: I have an idea, we'll just use company funds to buy the shares back on the open market. The shareholders will be elated so we'll kill two birds with one stone.
Howard: That's brilliant, why didn't I think of that! Wait, don't answer that question....
Harry: All we need to do is depress the share price so we can afford enough without digging too deep into our cash reserves. As an added bonus, option grant time is coming up so we'll get a low strike price.
Howard: That's brilliant! I'm already smelling the money! Let's have a toast to the good life.
Once
Data, you are really amazing! Tell us your secret, do you use speech recognition software to assist you in your CC "scribbles"?
In any case they are much appreciated and provide a long-term reference whenever someone wonders what, exactly, did management say.
Once
Jim, FYI, I did not "chase" everyone over to that second rate board at Raging Bull, they left because they couldn't stand to hear IDCC analysis that was not tailored to sound rosy and bullish. I have withheld comment on this issue because this board should be used to discuss IDCC, not internal politics, etc. Further discussion of site politics should be taken to the appropriate venue.
Once