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.
DannyD, I think you are overly harsh on Once. So he is a tad negative about the stock - so what. His opinion is contrary to the IDCC love-fest and many are urged to put him on ignore? Mickey is way out on the opposite end of the spectrum and the urgings are just 'tone it down a notch'. Well, Mickey is a steadfast long, so it's ok.
Quite frankly, I respect all the posters on this thread and Once is simply providing a VALUABLE service to guys like me. Balance. Stimulating thoughts about the company. We may argue about the style, but the content is on target toward that end. And the corelation to Matt's post on the 20 reasons was funny. Especially the auto parts line. And since we are talking about auto parts, just when is the engine supposed to startup and get the transmission in gear? We have heard that since late 99, and virtually NO SIGNIFICANT RESULTS to date. I define significant results as getting us to solid profits for 2 or more quarters in a row - and that is a lousy definition. All he said recently is that this is not a no brainer stock and that the court case is less than slam dunk and he made substantial argument to demonstrate his point. And he is having a little fun along the way. Go back and read his lat 40 or so posts. I think that with VERY FEW exceptions, his posts are on topic and cogent comments about this stock. I suspect Once is a LONG is sheeps clothing, adding some balanced negativity to the discussion to force the truly intelligent posters to strengthen their arguments for him and us all.
Snowblow5
MEMPHIS - Thanx for your response. I do appreciate the thoughts of others in this regard.
Snowblow5
fredtankos, thanx for your response. I don't know if there are such 'stand still' agreements in place or not. I suspect not. If there were, I think this would represent a material fact that the company must report out in the 10K and or other filings [S-8?].
Also, your last sentence intimates litigation, somewhat confirming the lack of the stand still agreement. Why noy just go ahead now with the litigation? No more on this from me - just a point to ponder for us all.
Snowblow5
Jim, thanx for the research. This still puzzles me because since '99, we have had plenty of cash in the bank to carry out this litigation and more. I suppose you think I am harping on a moot point so I will let it go. Thanx again.
Snowblow5
Memphis, I would be interested in your current options strategy. TIA
Snowblow5
longIDCC, I do not know what these numbers are right now. Not my point. Why wouldn't we have created the reverse linkage? Use the Sweden validation and German court issues to make them pay here - unless of course, they are just hell bent on NOT PAYING, as I suspect. I would love to be wrong here, but this has never made sense to me since Sep 99.
Snowblow5
JimLur,
Thanx for setting the record straight with respect to the court issues in Europe/Sweden. I seem to recall a victory in a German court. I will have to recheck this, but assuming the German court thing is true however, I find the answer is very disturbing in that if ERICY protested in Sweden and the Swedish Patent office issued the patent anyway, why are there either no revenuse from ERICY or a court case pending - in Sweden? I simply disagree with the position that IDCC would be 'wasting' money all over Europe seeking past royalty revenues. Instead we seem to be 'wasting' time [10 years or so now] on a huge, 'all eggs in one basket' bet that the US court decision, if it goes against them, will suddenly make them realize they should comply with the practices of their own country. Huh? And we won a German court case [I thought]. If so, why is this not BEING ENFORCED and why we are waiting on the US court system? "Wasting" money in getting the German court case enforced? I am missing something when we think that a Swedish company will ignore its own country's patent office, ignore the German court but suddenly come to terms worldwide [or globally?] with a result from an American court?
Also, it just does not seem logical to make the big bet here in court as this represents a HUGE risk, on the heels of the MOT debacle. Yes, they were not in very good financial shape way back when. But that has not been the case since 1999 at least. We had to 'sell the farm' with NOK and took it in the shorts with NEC, settling for less than 10% of what was claimed.
If any of the above is remotely accurate, this should tell me that ERICY will fight tooth and nail, appeal, drag it out as long as they possibly can.
Snowblow5
Asked on the club board also:
If IDCC has won against ERICY in Europe [Germany, Sweded, et.al] why is it that we see no income from them. Why is there an apparent linkage to the US case? Nobody has been able to adequately explain that - at least to me. If we have a court victory in Europe, what's the hold up? Why is there this apparent linkage? Am I all wet or what?
Same holds true on the 'other infringers' issue. Why the linkage? Has the company asked officially for them to pay? Why have we NOT taken them all to court for here? The legal expense issue doesn't hold much water with me.
Snowblow5
Fredtankos, the other option when you either don't like or want to control the neighbors is to buy the property.
Snowblow5
Quartzman, Good question. If we DO get largesums of cash, I am for some dividends to begin. Acquisitions are another possibility, but should be caefully considered in light of past failure to get licensees on board in a timely manner. Stock buybacks would be expensive by then and restrict an already relatively thin float. Dividends are also predicated 'on the come' that Bush's tax plan goes thru.
Snowblow5
Once, I disagree with your conclusion that IDCC requested the delay. They could have just forgotten to add the line about who/why the trial date is delayed and just reported out the fact that it was delayed. ERICY, as you mention has not acknowledged the trial with IDCC as significant, so delay is still a possibility of being at their request.
I honestly believe Sanders passed off the case as perhaps he and or another is preparing to retire? Case workload in the court would necessarily have to be reshuffled.
Snowblow5
Perhaps the court is reorganizing [retirement, deaths, etc.] and the delay is due to that as opposed to accomodating the parties or the complexity of the case.
Barefoot is 70 something years old. ?
Snowblow5
Glad you brought up chips again, Mickey. Where is the beef on this i$$ue? Anyone have any insight on this? It was a ten year deal with IFX that has let 2 or so years lapse without a $qeak from management. Any RESULTS from this deal?
And where is the 2nd chip deal?
Snowblow5
Mickey,
I think a better way to control excessive salaries/options/etc. is to organize a shareholder response at the ASM and vote it to oblivion. Not likely with the differences of opinion here, but... If each of us bought more shares, convinced some large institutional holders... :)
I would hate to see resources expended in defending such a law suit
Snowblow5
Mschere,
Right now, I think I agree with your reasoning. I am getting tired of no communication from the company and no results. I could live without the company telling us anything, but only if we have RESULTS. The board can communicate amongst itself and everyone would be happy!
Anyway, we can 'win' by settling - even if for a smaller amount than many, including me, would like. It gets us to the promised land somehow.
Snowblow5
I think that most
here are unwilling to accept the blame for creating the "Once's" of the boards. At one time or another, several posters to the boards here and the club board were loathsome to some. Some that seem to have caught the ire in the past include Data Rox, Ed Ferrari, Spree99, AMS and others. I even took a little crap from some on the old RB regular site for suggesting that we should not put much credence in the Berlin quotes overnight when they were way out of whack on little volume. The response back to me was rude and uncalled for. Quite frankly, these folks and most, are valuable posters. With the level of intelligence on this board, I find it truly amazing that it only takes a few to destroy the threads by goading them to bash back.
My perfect MB would always be on topic [I violate this myself once in a while, as here], and at least be civil. I actually appreciate the posts from Once !! Many are like me as well, I suspect, as he and other naysayers actually stimulate thought about this investment. Once periodically gets you guys to reinforce the argument against him periodically, and this is healthy and extremely helpful to me personally. I wish there were more naysayers that could keep it polite, professional. There exists on these MBs many persons with tremendously valuable insight. Trouble is, few are grown up enough to see this and resort to lowering the level back to bash and try to give it back. Ridiculous! Can't any adult here simply say, "Once, I disagree because ... without the insults, name calling, etc? I am amazed that there is more discussion on how to get rid of him than there is discussion from/to/with Once. Grow up folks. Bob Z nailed it with the post and responses [rmarchma?] on the 'negativity' of corporate salaries/options/etc. 11 responses saying 'good post', etc. but if Once said it, it would not be so?
I am invested in IDCC to make money. Period. Not for a love fest. USE your collective intelligence to help focus Once on his contrarian views and fight back with persuasion and logic - not the "get him outta here" mentality and redesign of the MB features.
Someone suggested to me privately that I try to get the board back on topic when this type thing happened - when the discussion migrated to the OT. I believe I did try that a few days ago [albeit poorly] by trying to stimulate a discussion on cash uses from the company and the possibility of dividends. I did not see any responses in that vein. But, admittedly, I did not read each and every post - WAY too much chaff out there. I do not sit at the keyboard all day to keep up to the minute. I usually have to read in the AM or after work [yes, some of us still have demanding 9-5's] and going thru 300+ posts each day is tiresome - too tiresome to have to deal with all this nonsense.
The answer is not to keep moving the board and it is not seeking creative MB features and rules. The answer lies within all of us to be adult enough not to bash back. However, I expect to be flamed for this, so have at it.
Snowblow5
jangis, I can believe ERICY wanted a delay because they seem to benefit. Why would IDCC want another delay? Case is 9+ years old and mediation has been 'ongoing' for over a year. Maybe some judge died/retired/quit/got fired and the docket had to be re-shuffled?
Snowblow5
But, this will hopefully be very good for me as I will re-fi the house and get some equity out - switched, rather - into IDCC ! Hopefully, the timing will have worked in my favor this time.
ALSO, I think that the Congress will need some time to get this dividend issue worked out and an IDCC win will allow for some discussion between now and May/June on the pro/con of giving us all some of this cash! I asked before on the RB board what the probable uses of lots of cash would be and did not get any substantial answers other than some did not want [taxable] dividends. So, I would pose again, what best to use any cash on, assuming a win in court. Seems like plenty of time to consider the question...
Snowblow5
While I would like to think that this delay is to allow the parties to come to an agreement, there are still 24 or so calendar days to the trial date. these guys are not restricted to workdays. 24 days or so is plenty of time to reach settlement if the parties are really that close.
This indicates to me that there is no settlement slated for Jan 03 anytime and that ERICY will go to trial. Or it just could be that the docket is too crowded? What has happened here? just a week or so ago, the news from the court was proceed as planned and now all is delayed? If the parties were close, they would have told the court of same and no need for delay, IMO. Especially if they were close enough to have it on 28 Jan. So much for another prediction from Mickey or whoever. And it looks like AMS was right to be concerned and many here gave him lots of 'shorty' grief over it. Unfortunately, looks like nobody here knows nottin' - again.
My belief is that ERICY WILL go to and thru trial. Just IMO.
Snowblow5
How do I get to read batch messages?
Snowblow5
OT: JimLur, my 2 cents on this new board. I think you and Matt or whoever is running the board behind the scenes should start to VIGOROUSLY enforce a few rules/cautions about OT posts and the 'how to use features' posts that are driving me [and probably many others (spree99?)] toward not wanting to use this board at all. Matt I believe posted a board site for info and practice posting of the charts, etc. Perhaps everyone could go there with all the drivel on how to post and send private messages, and whatnot that is COMPLETELY unrelated to IDCC. The only reason I would even consider paying is to get rid of all the OT drivel and stay abreast of the company/industry development, etc. Why would I want to pay to have to weed thru all the stuff on fly fishing or the Jets or somebody's kid's baseball team or whatever? Ihub monitors toke note! The very features touted are way offset by the nonsense on how to use, etc. Yes, this is off topic and will probably be the last from me on that.
I would suggest setting some kind of deadline for all this stuff to end and violators of that date be sent summarily to 'jail' so that the rest of us can focus. My guess is that over half of the 1200+ posts are non IDCC related drivel and the like. Probably too much to ask.
If I do pay, does it give me the right to have unlimited OT and other drivel posts? Is that a violation for which I could be sent to jail and lose posting priveleges? Hmmm.
Time to exercise some of that support.
I'm done with this rant.
Snowblow5
Guys, the language to which you are referring about being enjoined, I believe is fairly standard disclaimer type stuff. I hope I am wrong, but I would not read too much into this.
Snowblow5