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.
HEY! I finally won something!! What did I win??
Joel, Dilution is dilution - I don't think the capital infusion is at issue - simply the POTENTIAL total increase in the number of shares.
Spree - That is some mighty powerful wishful thinking. I seem to recall the Last week of December, 1999 when IDC [at the time] went from about 22 or so to over 80 in 5-6 days. Is that the kind 'biggest week in history' to which you refer?
Question for the options and market gurus: Does short interest also somehow factor in the options open interest?
TIA
Joel, yep and competition and a host of other issues
OT: Joel, I live in Michigan. Dabbled a few yrs ago in a snow removal service. Had 5 guys. Failed venture.
We will keep our eye on that ring for now. Please advise your client that because he is a cartoon hero, we are cutting him some slack, but just one false step, and ....
Ya,Ya Underdog is here, but has anyone given thought to just exactly what kind of secret energy pill that was hidden in his ring?
Thanx. I assumed that but did not know for sure. I think 10 yrs is an accepted practice/standard for these.
OT: Anyone remember the price by ASM guessing contest? Does it end Friday or just before ASM?
I was in at 25.25 and that looks very close right now. LOL
Dishfan, do you know when these options expire? Is there some industry standard like 10 years or something?
TIA
Let me see if I got this right...
Directors are granted options on the day elected with a strike price as the market value that day [or previous day?]. The start to vest or become exercisable every year at the next ASM and each year for the next 3 ASMs. Vested. Exercisable.
Example: Director Bob gets elected June 2000 and is granted 48000 [in this example using the current grant amount] options at the early June 2000 market price of $20. In June 2001, the first 16,000 vest or become exercisable. Problem is that in June 2001, IDCC price was about $15 or so. Options underwater, not exercised. In June 2002, the next 16,000 vest or become exercisable. Another problem: IDCC at about $10 - not exercised. Now it is June 2003. The last batch of 16,000 vest and become exercisable. Surprise - IDCC is at $25 ! Options now in the money and it becomes economically profitable [lets not go to NPV and FV and marginal rate of return, etc. arguments-way too esoteric for me]. Now ALL the 48,000 options are in the money.
Questions: 1. Do I have the basics correct? Or is my understanding incomplete?
2. When do the options EXPIRE - or do they even expire?
TIA for responses
But Mickey, we will get crap since most would negotiate a MFN/MFL clause and be able to show that neither NOK nor ERICY [not MOT for that matter] paid diddley-squat, so they won't either. Teecee asked if loop would have done something differently - I would have as loop suggested, taken them all the way thru court. I also would have breought concurrent suits against every last one of the infringing @#$@#$%$.
jmspaesq, why am I not surprised that you didagree? LOL.
Perhaps I underestimated the MOT debacle ramifications in all this. I don't completely agree that a 10 year old loss on different patent issues is entirely a roadblock you suggest, but we can let that one go as it seems irrelevant now in light of the settlement. MOT was a decade ago. How long are we to be 'paralyzed' by this?
The 'intangible' value of the settlement seems miniscule right now. The element of discord with me with the settlement was that it was not bundled with a 3g license going forward. I could easily swallow LESS in the settlement IF it was coupled with a fat rate going forward on 3g. But it was not. Here we are about 75 days after settlement and NOTHING new. No NOK. NO SAM. NO other infringers coming clean. Hmmmm. Now that this is settled [ERICY], what is going on with all those on the sidelines? My guess is that they are trying to figure out how to wiggle away for nothing or next to it in relative terms.
Right now, it is still a spitwad - don't see any starbursts just yet. Bottom line for me is that it is hard to focus on the miniscule nature of the intangible value of settlement.
As to the settlement NOW vs later: I may be mistaken and suffering from CRS at times, but I have said may times [on RB] that we should have been suing all the infringing bastards anywhere and everywhere we could. "Oh, its too expensive. The legal costs are enormous", was the only real answer. Well, everyone thought things would fall in line once ERICY was resolved. Where are they all? Water under the bridge now. If I did ever say settlement NOW [CRS factor entering in - I probably did at one time out of sheer frustration], my thoughts were that either the figure would be much higher or bundled, NOK,SAM rates would be established and other infringers would have been settled as well. Neither case exists. NOK is STILL not resolved. How much time do they need? What do they STILL need to determine the rate? Why are they not jumping on the hefty discounts for future rates?
Options issue: I naively think that the BOD is the body representing the shareholders at large on corporate governance. I expect THEM to help set the bar. I expect the bar to be raised periodically. I expect the management team to first earn their basic salaries and have some incentives to meet the higher set bar. So far, I see no evidence of the bar being raised. I DO NOT expect them to just get options, bonuses, etc., just for being there when the scientists and engineers hand them the 'engine and transmission' or ESSENTIAL patents in all standards so that they can go forth and do their basic jobs, for which they are paid in the first place. I would be VERY comfortable with giving out bonuses for good performance. It almost appears as if this is being deliberately dragged out just to get MORE options. According to HG, we have had the 3g 'engine and transmission' since Sep-Nov of 1999. And only 4 or 5 3g licenses? Where is MOT, AT&T, Siemans, ERICY, SONY, and the many others in this game? Afterall, it is supposed to be ESSENTIAL. Where are the revenues from IFX [2 yrs or so old and nothing yet]? What about a second chip deal?
"We'll have to see how everything shakes out. If you believe IDCC management that IDCC has ESSENTIAL IP under all standards then IDCC is in great shape to profit--even if the rollout is incremental and slower than originally anticipated due to market and economic conditions. If you don't believe them, then you probably shouldn't be invested in IDCC."
I am just about there, but willing to wait a bit to see IF anything actually does shake out. QCOM is on track to do $4Billions in revenue this year and we aren't even close. If we have thew engine and transmission, they must be getting it on tires and wipers. But your discussion in that regard also leads me to the next question: Why do we need to incentivize this slow performance? Set the bar [we don't know where it is now], raise the bar every so often [no fluff stuff], and jump over the bar in order to get the reward. I believe there should be a performance bonus system in place as opposed to an incentive plan that is probably too easily met, especially in light of what I perceive as low and slow performance.
Frustrated? You bet. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this. And thank you for civility.
jmspaesq, I appreciate your response. Just do not completely agree with it.
The uncertainty associated with the case was, I thought, diminished by the 'smoking gun' memo some reported here. Harris got triple for past infringement which was double what we settled for on a less strong issue, IMO. Oh, well, you are correct in that the uncertainty has been removed. I am still grousing to some extent about the low settlement. Settlement now vs. a win which in all probability would be appealed for a couple of years: we waited 10+ so what is another couple years in the scheme of life? [besides, with all those 3g licenses you mentioned, survival should be no problem, yes?] The NPV argument doesn't hold much water with me right now either - especially when you threw in the value relative to other licenses and future tech argument. Guess I am from Missouri - show me. And TDD is already "free" for NOK, so not much future value there.
NOK/SAM dependency to the ERICY settlement: Neither is yet paying and it is likely either or both will go to arbitration. IDCC has a lousy reputation in this regard, IMO. And the litigation costs, while steep, are a cost of business for a company that makes nothing but IPR and needs to enforce them.
The back payment bodes ill for us going forward, IMO, in that the effective rate is virtually at a bare minimum - why do you think NOK and SAM haven't paid all this cash and will likely go to arbitration?
Perhaps I am underestimating the MOT debacle, however, for the reasons you stated, IDCC DID survive - and has $$ in the bank. Enough to survive a continuing ERICY situation - especially with all the 3G IPR. [And it is not uncommon to get a hit with 2 strikes]
I did not say that IDCC has no 3g licenses. I did say that such a low settlement with ERICY should also have been wrapped up with a fat 3g license. Sorry if I conveyed the wrong impression. You are probably correct in that IDCC and ERICY are working on a 3g license. BUT, since we are on that, just how many 3g licenses do we have? With BIG boys, not just the hop-ons of the world? And subtract the TDD free pass NOK has.
I guess I just don’t understand you when you say, “It is ironic IMHO that you simultaneously complain about the delay in obtaining the $34 M settlement AND complain that the settlement didn't resolve all outstanding issues between the two companies.” Why is that ironic? It took almost 10 years, no 3g deal and we settled 2g for a pittance. You mean, that was too much to ask for?
Finally, the ‘linkage’ to the options argument as an incentive: Incentive for whom? I would agree if it is reserved for the engineers and tech types, but for management? No way. Not after what they already got. IT IS THEIR BASIC JOB with this IPR company to go forth and get licenses – or they should be fired. We have had the engine and transmission for almost 4 years now. How many licenses do we have for them? . They need to do the basics VERY well first, before ANY options.
jmspaesq, if there was such a strong shot accross the bow to other infringers, why settle? Settlement looks weak and amounts to shooting a spitwad accross the bow. Follow-thru? Hardly, IMO. Yes, I am one that thinks the $$ amt of settlement was VERY poor. If this was to establish some 'new framework' going forward, it is not compelling and what is telling is that there is no apparent 3g license. I could be much more comfortable with the $34M if it also included a hefty license rate for 3g. This thing is so 'compelling' that NOK has STILL not agreed to a licensing rate? After what 3-4 years and counting? And this is a reason to reward management with more options and a greater cut of our pie? I think not.
Have a great Memorial Day.
Point is that much IS factored into current price. And IDCC always seems to short change themselves either in arbitration or in court case/settlements.
jmspaesq, I think that the '$45M' or $34M was not the only thing that triggered what happened to stock price. Many may also realize that this also would trigger $$$ from NOK, et.al.
The actual settling of NOK, SAM, etc may not bring as much as many figure here. And it will not be as high a recurring royalty rate either,IMO. It is back payments that will not recurr.
along with some cash, deals from NOK, et. al, of course.
Some wishfull thinking...would be nice if we could announce a split or at least get something on the ballot at the ASM to authorize the shares, etc. for such; announce more buyback or continue buyback and announce eith a one-time special dividend of about $1 per share or something. Shorts would be scrambling all over each other to find the door, IMO.
Anyone: Was there a time limit on NOK getting the discount for prepayment? If so what is/was it?
I can't believe it was unlimited and should coincide with the "days" comment from March. Or not?
F6, please explain how much poison there is in the pill for me. Also, what if one was not a shareholder of record on 3 Jan 1997? Are we screwed in terms of getting these rights?
Then which shares are "new common shares issued" after that? How is this ascertained? I bought in during 1999, 2000 and 2001. How would I know if there are rights attached to any of my shares? Then, seems as though I need 1000 rights to be able to get a single share of Series B Junior Participating Preferred Stock at a purchase price of $250 per share, subject to adjustment [whatever that means?].
Bottom line, who really gets any of the poison?
Once, OK, now got a few picks worth investigating.
Yes, Once, it is so much that you dodged the question. I am truly interested in your investment strategy, stock picks, etc. I even offer up a non-disclosure promise - e-mail me at snowblow5@attbi.com
Once, thank you for responding, however, you have totally dodged the question. I am not asking for you to caution me on this stock - I am here eyes wide open and I am aware of the risks and potential for losses and gains. I do appreciate your contribution to the board.
I am at a point that I can give serious consideration to taking some profits with an avgerage price in at $7.90 and all of it long term. I am interested in opinions and recommendations - good and bad - on a variety of investments. I will do my DD, but would be interested in your thoughts and possibly a place to begin the research.
If you choose not to reply publically, please respond e-mail to: snowblow5@attbi.com
TIA
Once, I have been trying to figure all this out as well - the 'days' issue; the seemingly large insider sales; etc... While you are somewhat the nay-sayer on IDCC, which I do not mind as I believe it good for the discussion as a whole, I do understand the thrust of your objections to this stock. What I don't understand, or missed altogether, is what investments you DO like. Someone asked a little while back, and I must have missed the response. If one were to follow your thinking, where would one put profits from this investment?
Not trying to be a smart-ass, just wanting to seek alternatives. TIA
I will throw my guess to the wind in at $25.25 $25.10 if the first is already taken.
I was wrong about ERICY taking this all the way to trial and wrong about what this would settle for by a whole decimal point at least, so what credence would my guess have anyway?
KAJO, was not trying to impugn your investment acumen. I just do not agree with your conclusion. Sorry if you took it that way.
Continues good luck with your investments.
Snowblow5
KAJO, what makes you think that? ERICY could just be continuing to ignore or dispute our 'engine and transmission' claims that only IDCC has made. I am not aware that anyone else has recognized [by paying license] that we really DO have these auto parts on hand.
Snowblow5
Does anyone think we have had a paradigm shift with respect to the 'buy on the rumor/sell on the news' addage? That is 'sell on the rumor and buy on the news'? Methinks that is exactly the mentality we [mostly] all dream of - at least on IDCC.
Snowblow5
Random, Sorry, but this is not a strong enough argument to support the notion of buying pressure for me. The guy that bought the 5000 shares was just sopping up the supply - at HIS price - the lower price. He simply facilitated the SELLING pressure exerted by the guy that wanted to sell 5000 and would not 'stand firm' at the higher price. The sell pressure was greater than the buy [lack of] pressure, resulting in the lower price. "How else would you explain 21,400 shares bought in the after market .45 above the close?" Lots and lots of possibilities, including someone that bought at the low during the day and turned $0.45 in the aftermarket - to the tune of about $10 grand - not to shabby for a few hours [and relatively risk, IMO] "work".
Snowblow5
twelvebees, I don't think either party 'approved' a time extension. But since we have no facts, all is speculation. I have suggested alternative possibilities as to why the case is postponed.
Workload shuffling for some reason, possibly preparation for a retirement [Barefoot Sanders was at last count about 74 years old]; Somebody else died, retired, took another appointment; Lynn wants to take a short sabatical or vacation or other life altering event coming up; I don't know and neither does anyone else. I agree that it is probably not in the best interests of IDCC if this thing really does go to trial As I think it will. Again, nobody really knows and everyone is speculating. I also think ERICY should already have settled, but they have not. Mschere posted indications that ERICY may fight this out to the bitter end. Who really knows? Yes, frustrated with the whole lack of info thing.
Snowblow5
mschere, your post delineating the ERICY mentality showuld be carefully read by all that think settlement is near. this basically should tell everyone that ERICY will continue to fight and fight hard. Even after the willfull infringement finding, they say we did not infringe and will appeal.
Think about it. They will drag it out for years on what we all view as a relative pittance. What do you think they will do for 10+ times that amount? They are screaming about having had the jury 'inflamed' on this amount. They are STILL denying infringement. They will appeal.
They, and others, have announced rollouts of all kinds of systems, yet few have licensed.
IDCC is not trading anywhere near or like a settlement is a done deal. It doesn't look like the smoking gun memos are smoking at all. NOK is waiting in the wings hoping for a complete debacle and a REALLY low rate tied to the outcome - which could be a few more years.
And with the love-fest by many here, some have concluded that there is actually buying pressure of late? Let's see...19 to 12 and change. Yup, lots of buying pressure. If that is the case, we need a whole lot of sell pressure.
Snowblow5
Randomwalk, please explain to me how a 7+% dop in the price equates to buying pressure. I must have this supply and demand think confused.
Snowblow5
OT: fredtankos, thanx. that does make some sense on the stand still issue.
Snowblow5
plumear, thanx for your comments. Don't know if I can agree with the part about IDCC not wanting everyone to know about the huge linkage to one issue. Management's actions, and/or lack of action [getting new licenses, deals, etc.] - failing to get a NOK rate, 2nd chip deal, etc., speak louder than words. They are telegraphing the same thing without actually saying it. Net result is the same. IMO.
Snowblow5
plumear, thanx for your comments. Don't know if I can agree with the part about IDCC not wanting everyone to know about the huge linkage to one issue. Management's actions, and/or lack of action [getting new licenses, deals, etc.] - failing to get a NOK rate, 2nd chip deal, etc., speak louder than words. They are telegraphing the same thing without actually saying it. Net result is the same. IMO.
Snowblow5
Well, I truly do hope that there is a settlement. I truly do hope it is announced on 28 Jan 03. I will be richer for it. But it is not a sure thing.
Anyway, I thought you did direct that at me because I am the only one out there in his 'support'. I also do not believe I am bitching about him being here or what he affords. If that was not your intent, my apologies.
OT: And... by private message, one person has stepped up to the plate [half-heartedly] and put me on ignore for my 'support' of Once. Some people just don't get it.
Snowblow5
Balance, Daniel-san. I would have hoped that you particularily would re-read Once's posts objectively. You are among the more level-headed on the board. I respect your views as much as anyone's even though I do not always agree. Not agreeing with someone is no reason to ignore them.
I believe Sun Tsu [sp?] said something akin to, 'Know the enemy's position and seek out it's weakness.'
Snowblow5
Well, Mickey, you obviously directed that at me. So put me on ignore. But, he is just exercising his right to post, as are you. He makes equally persuasive posts, perhaps more so than many others, including you at times. To wit, the speculation about the done deal nature you keep flaunting. Holy hell, man, you have been saying this since 99 or so. Maybe you are right. Maybe he is right. Maybe I am right. Who really knows? Maybe the Judge is going in for surgery or something soon and will need recouperation time. Maybe she is going on an extended vacation to Hawaii or someplace. I don't know, but the point is that you do not know either.
What makes you or anyone else think that: 1. Just because we went to the RB Club board that 'we' totally ignored other boards? and 2. that I am egging him on? If my support of his view is at odds with yours or anyone else's equates with a 'lack of loyalty', just ignore me. A truly objective person would read his last 40 or so posts here and probably conclude that he is presenting the balance to the love-fest.
I am just as long as I have been and will soon be adding to my position. I am doing this for PROFIT, not "loyalty".
So, if I disagree with you or the "loyal longs", go ahead and ignore me, flame me, and bury your head in the sand.
Snowblow5
fredtankos, thanx for your response. The 'stand still' agreements, if not material enough to warrent a 8-S or whatever SEC filing, surely are germaine enough to have been mentioned in a 10K somewhere along the line, do you think? Why would this be kept hush-hush? I suppose that this is my frustration with the lack of communications from a communications company. I
It appears to me and many others that there is linkage to one court case at the moment for the near term future of the company. The NOK rate STILL undetermined? What is the hold-up, unless it is linked to the ERICY trial.
Snowblow5