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.
Patricia, I appreciate your sincere and heart-felt message. I can tell you are a good, honest and law-abiding person through and through. However, it appears we have a difference of opinion with regards to what constitutes "wrong" and whether anyone has been harmed and just what that harm is.
The fact that Matt is part owner of iHub does not give him any moral authority or wisdom above the common sense we are all born with and I have four e-mails in my mail box that disagree with Matt that there was any harm done or any foul was commited. It's just a bunch a-do about nothing.
If standing up for what I believe in makes me look bad in some peoples eyes, than so be it. I have stood up for truth and honesty when it comes to facts surrounding IDCC and taken a lot of heat for it but I'm glad I took a stand on things that are important to me. What kind of world do we live in when we start letting others think for us?
Anyway, I can see I will probably not be changing your mind but thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope your pot roast and banana creme pie come out perfect!
Once
I'll make it easy for anyone so inclined to read my past posts on IDCC:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/profile.asp?User=17549
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/profile.gsp?id=3727218
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/memalias.cgi?board=IDCC&member=Onceinalifetime
And while we are at it, I might as well post a link to my SFTS posts as well:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/memalias.cgi?board=SFTS&member=Onceinalifetime
Any questions?
Once
Mschere, I agree, the first quarter IDCC earnings are probably going to look really good, not nearly as good as you imply but really good nonetheless:
"Qualcomm earned $103 Million for its current quarter..The market values this earning power at some $24 Billion..IDCC will earn IMO: a similar amount for its first Quarter and the market currently values this earning power at $1.2 Billion."
The problem is that IDCC's revenues are extremely 'lumpy' quarter to quarter and it doesn't take a financial analyst to see that revenues for the year will be front-loaded into the first quarter and, if I'm not mistaken, there will be considerable revenue recognized from past quarters as well.
What this does to the stock price is anyone's guess but it won't be viewed in the same quality vein as Qualcomm's earnings which are much more predictable, less lumpy and of a more secure nature due to the high proportion of recurring revenue to license fee royalties.
IDCC needs to develop a steady stream of recurring royalties that are not going to dry up when the world transitions to 3G. Right now IDCC's license agreements don't even cover 2G handsets if that 2G handset also contains 3G functionality. That's just plain weak in my book.
Unless and until IDCC signs up the major manufacturers for 3G and 2G/3G their existing 2G royalties will not be valued very highly by the street since they will dry up as dual-mode becomes the norm. And right now those agreements are looking mighty slippery.
Once
Art, let's get some facts straight. First, I don't hate IDCC. Just because I stand up against deception, lies, hype and exaggeration does not mean I hate IDCC. That is your illogical interpretation.
Secondly, I did not start posting about IDC on RB, it was on SI under the alias Bux.
Finally, I don't have "over 5000 negative posts on IDCC". Where did you come up with that sweetie?
Once
There is an interesting disparity here:
"Mobile phone maker Sony Ericsson reported wider first quarter losses due to weaker sales and falling handset prices, and analysts said its goal of turning profitable this year looked difficult."
Qualcomm just reported also and said their revenues were helped by Average Selling Prices (ASP's) of their licensees handsets that were about 10% higher than the comparable quarter.
I wonder if the difference is the handset mix, ie. Sony Ericsson is mostly GSM and Qualcomm is mostly CDMA? That would make sense because CDMA is leading the market to 3G and color screens and higher bandwidth processors, cameras, etc. all work to drive ASP's up while GSM phones may be becoming more of a commodity type item?
Once
Laughing out loud! That makes me feel a lot better about donuts!
Once
Ed, this will be my last post to you on this subject:
"You, on the other hand, sent out unsolicited e-mail to that list. This is known as spam, a highly frowned upon practice, as you should know."
First of all, the first message was simply giving people the opportunity to decline to receive further IDCC e-mails. Secondly, it's not SPAM because that's what the list was created for in the first place, to share IDCC stuff.
Where there is no victim, there is no crime, end of story.
Once
Twelvebees, a little perspective may be in order:
"Have the short sellers ignored the unusually bullish comments by HG about the licensing payments from Nokia and Samsung? If the answers to these questions are yes, then they are idiots!"
It's interesting the way most longs would not tolerate being described as "idiots" but somehow it seems o.k. if we are talking about short-sellers. Isn't that a double standard?
Once
Snowblow, it's not so much that I dodged your question, just that there are more applicable forums for such a discussion. You asked me where I think you should put your IDCC profits. That has nothing to do with IDCC.
Hopefully no one has money invested in IDCC simply by default, that is, because they couldn't think of anywhere else to park it. I have spent the last three years mostly in cash, money markets and CD's. I don't have a great return but I don't need to. I locked in the great returns from the previous decade.
Once
Mschere, I have never called IDCC a "bad" investment. Misunderstood, yes. Risky, yes. Over-hyped, yes. But never a bad investment.
The record will reflect this.
BTW, your claiming someone is a paid basher or a short does not make it so.
Once
Snowblow, good questions. Investing is just as much about avoiding losses as it is making a profit. It's about balancing the risk/reward. We have all been analyzing the good/bad points regarding IDCC whether we know it or not. If after all this analysis we conclude it is over-valued does that mean all our work was in vain? Of course not.
And those times that IDCC is near the bottom of it's trading range I have even nibbled and I made no secret about it. My message has never been "don't buy IDCC". My message has always been that IDCC is not the company it is cracked up to be. That it carries more risk than most of the bulls would have you believe and is far less likely to ever become the triple digit stock that so many assume is always just around the corner. The reason for this (IMO) is that the value of their IPR has been misrepresented by the bulls. It's a compelling view but not one that necessarily reflects reality.
Every investor must make investment decisions and balance their portfolios to suit their personal situation. How is it possible to do this effectively if one of their core holdings is not the stock that it is portrayed to be?
Once
The three e-mails I received are baffled why anyone would object. But I can see how others might try to earn brownie points by acting as if you have a valid point. Anyway, I'm glad you are dropping it. Now as long as you don't act out on your grudges in your official role as Sheriff we will all be happy.
Once
Learning, your scenario is most puzzling:
"Think about the possibility that the top brass at InterDigital have been fighting for their dignity, honor, and some cash to celebrate with, for almost as long as some of us have been frustrated shareholders.
OK, got that picture? Well, maybe everything they have been fighting and working for just fell into place."
If I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that management just couldn't wait for the shares to reflect the true value they had just created by their shrewd license negotiations. They wanted to PARTY and they wanted to PARTY now! And this celebrating was going to cost millions of dollars? And rather than take out a loan to party with, they decided to just sell the shares before they appreciated.
First of all your scenario makes no sense. Secondly, even if that's what we are witnessing with these large discretionary insider sales, I don't think it would be wise to invest in a company that was run by people with so little discipline.
I don't believe I have misinterpreted what you wrote. Either way you cut it, your scenario just doesn't paint a positive picture. I'm not trying to be negative, just rational.
Once
Learning, I can't understand how you come to these conclusions:
"OK, suppose that is what we are waiting on. What's to worry about? Not much longer term IMO, but plenty if your bet is on the near term "Call" options or you are pushing hard on the margin leverage at this point. "
You were discussing 3G royalty rates. IMO, there is plenty to worry about. The majors have not signed up yet. What part of that doesn't worry you? Qualcomm signed the major manufacturers up for 3G back in 1999-2000 with a few stragglers in 2001. What is so different about IDCC that manufacturers are waiting, waiting, waiting?
Now we have a third party willing to indemnify others against IDCC's IPR claims and you still claim there is nothing to worry about in the long-term? Please explain.
Once
Matt, the fact that you are trying to dictate my behaviour well outside of your duties here at iHub does not reflect well on your ability to be an impartial Sheriff.
"Be a man. Destroy the list. Apologize. And never do it again."
Your insinuation that I will only "be a man" if I follow your narrow view of proper e-mail etiquette reminds me of something I might hear on a Middle School playground, not what I would expect to hear from the owner of one of the top four stock discussion forums.
I think you should get off your high horse and stop making a big deal out of nothing. Even if I had done something wrong, which I haven't, it would be completely outside your jurisdiction. For you to continue to harp on this shows a lack of proper restraint.
Once
Matt, you are really going overboard with this:
"Sure, they can reply with unsubscribe, but then you've got their IP address. Who knows what you might do with that. You were distasteful enough to steal a list, why not play with IP addresses, eh?"
I can't believe you are serious here. Is your idea of a good time trying to raise peoples ire? First, I didn't steal the list, I am list member and it was e-mailed to me. Now you are trying to insinuate that it is dangerous to let others know your ISP's IP address! You know better than that. Every website you visit has access to your ISP's IP address, everyone you e-mail has it also, there isn't any danger. You know that. It is a red herring, IP addresses are not the issue. You are just trying to irritate me. Why would you try to irritate your own customers? Pretty weird if you ask me.
You are really making a mountain out of thin air.
Once
Bulldzr, I know you were not speaking of IDCC. I had interpreted your comments in the context of corporate America in general and how greed and dishonesty has taken over. I think the markets may not recover until this is fixed.
I think you misinterpreted me because you just expect me to say something negative about IDCC every post. I encourage you not to project those types of misconceptions on me. Just take my words at face value, I generally write very specifically and try to be concise enough that I can't be understood but all that goes out the window if you start jumping to conclusions.
Once
Bulldzr, great post and I agree 100% !!!
"Please DannyDetail...please don't tell me I'm out of the lines. This is a Great Country, but it is a Great Country not because of these Corporate Giants, but in spite of them, IMO. If something isn't done to curb and reel in the abuses of these thieves and their Wall Street co-conspirators, our Nation as we know it will continue to suffer from it."
It's always nice to find some solid common ground!
Cheers!
Once
O.K. I'll guess $18.00!
Once
Twelvebees, Nokia may have had an agreement in place to pay IDCC since before 2002 but it has been quite clear there is not a specific royalty rate attatched to that agreement. In my opinion that is not much better than no agreement at all. As Howard says "We just need to fill in the blanks". A lot of good that does us, that's what most contractual agreements are all about, filling in the blanks! That's what makes the contract.
So yes, it could easily take longer than two months to resolve. Let me ask you a serious question. Has IDCC ever done anything faster than you expected?
I rest my case.
Once
Ziploc, HG said the agreement with Nokia required settlement within a "specific number of days". You wrote:
"HG said NOK should pay WITHIN DAYS. I interpret this to mean between 30 and 60 days. More than 60 days would be months, not days."
I would like to point out the Howard was likely referring to specific contract language and there is nothing there to conclude it is less than 60 days. If the contract said "within 180 days" then that's what it would be. It would be unusual for a contact to say "within 4 months" because months vary in length. It would be more common to say "within 120 days". It could also say "within 720 days", that would still fit HG's description of "specific number of days". Months has nothing to do with it, it's just contract language, let's try not to read things into it that are not there.
Once
Of course not Mschere.
Once
Jim, 1 million more shorts is only bullish if there is upward price pressure. On the other hand, it means there is $20 Million bet that IDCC will be lower in the coming months. That's a lot of money on the line. People generally don't get this kind of money by being reckless.
It's only good if there is a short-squeeze. Otherwise it's an indicator of negative sentiment.
Once
Ed, I've surfed all over IDCC's website and can't find a list of TDD licensees (or any licensees for that matter). What do you suppose is going on?
Once
Why wait Jim, IDCC is a public company and you have a right to ask why they removed the page that investors have been relying on to make investment decisions. Don't wait for them to replace it before you inquire.
A company that wasn't always scrambling to stay on top of things would prepare the updated license page in the background and then seamlessly switch them. None of this delayed funny business with investors wondering what it all means. In my book that's unacceptable.
Once
Good post Goduke. It really explains why we shouldn't take SARS too lightly. It's no laughing matter.
Once
Ah, one of my all time favorites!
Jam on!
Once
Whatever Matt, it's your opinion and I can see I'm not going to change it. Even Hitler had an opinion, I even met a couple of people who agreed with him, it doesn't mean he was right.
Once
Matt, you have this wrong. The list was created by all of us so those of us interested in IDCC could send reports or other items of interest to each other without having to post them publicly. It was a group effort but the only way to compile the list was at a central address. Jim volunteered to do this. Now anyone on the list can send information to all. Haven't you ever been on an e-mail list?
Because I know that some people find my ideas controversial, I have taken the extra step of allowing others to opt out of e-mails from me. So far only two have unsubscribed. To me that tells me that the vast majority of the people on the list are glad to receive e-mails I have that may be of interest to the group. I am not disclosing the e-mail address list to anyone or mailing to people who do not wish to receive e-mail from me. Any e-mails I send are automatically scanned with virus software before being sent. That is more than I can say about e-mails I received from others on the list. One list member already sent me an unmarked virus, fortunately I caught it before it infected my computer and wrecked havoc. That was a malicious act.
In short, I find your criticism misplaced. You are attacking me simply because I disagree with the raging IDCC bulls. This is a list that we created specifically for the purpose of sharing things IDCC. No one is receiving e-mail from me that doesn't want to. If they decide in the future they don't want it they can simply reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject and they will be removed. I am being completely upfront and honest about this but, for all you know, other list members have taken those same addresses and marketed them to a third party or started to sign up people to services they don't want. And I know a virus was already sent to me (before my introductory e-mail went out). Why don't you go attack the people who are actually causing problems instead of those who are going out of their way to play nice and not cause grief for anyone?
Once
Wannabe, any special suggestions on music archives? You seem to know of a lot of good ones but I can't find the file directory for the one you use on Anglefire.
Once
I would have to agree. It looks like IDCC is back-peddling on the essentiality of their IPR to all standards. I'm sure the usual suspects will claim they are just becoming more "conservative" to which I would ask "If they were already 'very conservative', why would they become even more conservative?
Once
Spider, if you are on my e-mail list you will need to follow the unsubscribe instructions I sent out yesterday. I can't unsubscribe you (or anyone else) from here. You will be the third person to opt out.
Sorry to see you go.
Once
That prediction is my gut-level feeling after having watched how IDCC's management works. By November of 2004 it will either be time to show us the money or to slither away. Or would that be bail out on their golden parachutes? I wonder if their severance packages are as lucrative as their options? Does anyone know the specific terms of the various severance packages of IDCC insiders?
Actually, the time to show us the money has already come and gone but somehow IDCC management skillfully convinced us that they are not primarily a two G company, they are all about Three G! Pretty slick, huh?
Remember when the Ericsson lawsuit was worth not $34 million but over a Billion dollars? How could anyone have believed that? Now people have tied their hopes to Three G! Yup, a whole 'nuther ball game!
Once
Well, it will make it harder for you to *shock* them with your snake.....<g> Seriously though, I think the warning is unnecessary for the mild sort of spice I've seen here so far. Not sure I would want to see it get any spicier, plenty of that elsewhere on the net.
My $.02
Once
That looks great! It's the latest change that is lacking. Ah well, some have it and some don't...
Once
Do you have "Telegraph Road" by Dire Straits? I don't know what happened to my copy so I haven't heard it in a long time.
Once
Matt, we are really fortunate to have someone so responsive running the show. However, you really messed this one up. Have you no sense of aesthetics? The proportions of the post number window are all wrong now. It's large enough to hold up to 9 Million posts without scrolling! Now that's a lot! Do you know how long it would take to get 9 million posts?
You better fix this before Bob returns or I'll have to tell him.
Once
MyDime, it's not that I have a manufactured answer ready, it's that, unlike a lot of others here, I don't state things as facts that are not true. It's really that simple.
Once
I'm not going to do your research for you but my definition of a "mass exodus" is one in which well over half the management team leaves.
Are you saying the current management are the same people that were implicated by the SEC of serious improprieties by the SEC around 1996-1997?
Once
Not, it was just how large it was, left me speechless!
Once