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.
Your post is not a surprise, and proves my point.
Re: "shorts"
Such a demagogic, populist post, such an appeal to ignorance and prejudice, is beneath your dignity.
Re: agenda
Do you not see that by only speculating about the positive implications of an indeterminate event, you are promoting your own agenda? Prudent investing requires evaluating negative inferences and constructs, as well as those that are positive.
Mindy, thanks for keeping us abreast of the news. Your hard work is appreciated.
Fixed fee contracts bet against growth, in a growth industry. Kind of like shorting the market.
Isn't that March link mooted by the abandonment of the Slimchip asic?
Fortunately, I have better things to do than research your gibberish. And, their worldwide standard royalty rate is the same for all CDMA flavors - including WCDMA.So if that's now your central premise, you're wrong about that, too.Incidentally, can you identify one wireless opinion you've ever been right about?
Say what, Pumpkin? You used to claim that Qualcomm wouldn't make money from WCDMA, and that IDCC "owned" 3G. You have yet to be right about anything.
I'm just trying to get a handle on the revenue stream that revlis claims we will get from 3G embedded devices sold pursuant to the INTC/NOK collaboration.
Specifically, what is the nature of the revenue such a product will produce for IDCC, assuming a fixed fee license is executed between IDCC and Nokia, and all Nokia provides is the 3G modem/protocol stack?
Magilla, none of Qualcomm's failed cases against Nokia involved 3G patents. They were efforts to assert GSM/GPRS/EDGE claims, as collateral foreplay.
revlis, if that cheap swipe was directed at me, only you, not I, have ever professed expertise in patent matters. On the other hand, I have been a litigator of complex cases continuously since 1973. And you?
Last, we are over a year, and an ITC trial, removed from the disclosure, without a deal. That means they had nothing concrete in hand, and no need to open their mouths disclosing their perception of the parties' relative negotiating positions. Even a binding term sheet can break down with varying interpretations, when final,intricate, settlement document drafts are proposed.
Licensing negotiations are complex under the best of circumstances. They are attenuated, sensitive, and multi-dimensional, when dealing with Tier 1 purveyor Nokia.As a litigator, I find it troubling that one negotiating party would publicly characterize "substantial progress", through SEC disclosure, without having at least a signed term sheet.They obviously had nothing concrete, except the need to avoid a Monday hit in the market from the Judge Batts Stay Order. As such, their unilateral disclosure was at best ill advised, and at worst deceptive.
I have never seen any other company issue a similar "substantial progress" disclosure, during ongoing, complex negotiations.Can anyone point to a such a disclosure? At the time, it seemed bizarre,actionable, and intended solely to support the stock after the original ITC hearing was stayed.
The sale of Nortel assets is due to bankruptcy. The infrastructure business has high costs and slim margins, and a finite book of business. Throw in competition from China (Huawei and ZTE) and collapsing price quotes, and you have a prescription for consolidation. That being said, the CDMA/LTE assets and personnel from Nortel fill a void for Nokia/Siemens, and give them a leg up at Verizon. The transaction makes sense for both companies.
China Mobile likely wanted to spread TD-SCDMA to India. Their failure to come to terms can be seen as another failure of TD-SCDMA.
It is precisely such an increasing market share,as well as growing unit and smartphone sales, that are the problems with fixed fee agreements.To have an upside surprise, the licensor needs to be banking on declining sales, or shrinking market share.The Nokia agreement should be unit based, in order to avoid IDCC's missing out on parallel hockey stick 3G (and 4G) growth,relative to their addressable market.
revlis, that visceral reaction to a recitation of legitimate concerns, that any investor who dares question a decision of management should sell his shares, is arrogant, cavalier, and jingoistic.You apparently have swallowed the hook deep into your gullet, but many still crave analytical reasoning and critical thinking, as a tool of due diligence.We all know we can buy and sell this and any other stock at will. Your false choice of "love it or leave it" was proven to be demagoguery with the Viet Nam experience.
But the Kindle doesn't use an IDCC modem. In fact, there is no longer any IDCC modem.
Mickey, I think this stock should rise in price,as more companies are licensed, assuming the overall market remains intact. That's why I still own the stock. But, IMHO, it is no more a "screaming buy" today, than at any other time over the years when you've made the same assertion.
"Crying shame", "screaming buy", "dumb", "attitude and expectations" - Mickey, your history of being consistently wrong about this stock gives you no right to cast such insulting aspersions against others, nor does it give your wild eyed speculations any credibility. (How many, other than yourself, have gone broke listening to you?)
Oh, I get it. It's IDCC that doesn't want to sign Ericsson. It's not that the "honorable company" Ericsson, has not wanted to sign with IDCC for all the years since we were led to believe a 3G license would be forthcoming.
You're right, Ronnie, "no violation". But what do we know for certain as to his reasoning? Is it based upon "invalidity" this time? Without the Staff Attorney's Report, we can only speculate.
Eventually, you'll be right about one of your wild eyed assessments.
Mickey, you're simply speculating. To make an intelligent assessment, you need facts, and we have none concerning who was offered what.One cannot reasonably conclude that IDCC is in control of the negotiations, nor the decision to try the case.And, it's hard to spin the staff attorney's position concluding "no infringement" as anything but negative for IDCC, even though the ALJ is free to disregard it.
Re: "over in August"
Not necessarily. Just last week, The Commission reversed a finding of "no infringement" that had been rendered last December in the Tessera v Qualcomm, Freescale, Motorola, ST-M, et al case.Although I still expect a license prior to the August decision, if it goes to decision, that won't end the matter. And after a Commission appeal, the Presidential Veto Period is next, followed by he Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
This has been ongoing for a few years. But Korean fines on Intel and Microsoft have been in the $25 mil range. Clearly not a big deal no matter how it turns out.
What was the "reality" of that bizarre press release last year, to the effect of substantial progress on all issues with Nokia? I still have never seen any other company issue a similar disclosure, without a final deal being executed within a few days.
What customers in Korea would that be, Pumpkin, and for what product(s)? You must know something IDCC doesn't, because IDCC didn't file a complaint, though Broadcom and and a couple small Korean software companies did. Of course, Broadcom has since withdrawn theirs.
TMP, you apparently don't understand the QCOM/NOK deal - 15 years, 2G,3G, and 4G technologies, $2.5 bil cash, plus ongoing per unit royalties on all infrastructure and handsets/devices, plus the transfer of numerous patents to QCOM in all technologies - GSM,GPRS,EDGE,3G, and 4G, plus an agreement not to assert any NOK patents against QCOM.
OT - Why do you feel obligated to cheer and boo the posts of others? Is that the best you can contribute to the discussion?
I have yet to see any post claiming Nokia will not need to sign a license with IDCC, or that they won't sign one. The points of contention are simply rates and terms. By agreeing to a fixed rate, short duration, Tier 1 license with Samsung, InterDigital has established what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license with Nokia will look like.The time to see litigation through was in the Samsung matter, when they had a liquidated 2G award in hand, and the ALJ was ready to disclose his decision.But apparently InterDigital then knew something that we couldn't know, and they cut the best deal negotiable. That established the fair market commercial value of the 3G patents owned by InterDigital, as regards a Tier 1 licensee. (The public disclosure of "substantial progress" with the Nokia negotiations a year ago remains one of the more bizarre, head scratching events, in investment history.)
Sprint's a customer, not an adverse party. It was a 3G settlement with Ericsson, not a 2G case, you're alluding to.
The difference began with wireless geniuses Irwin Jacobs and Andy Viterbi, and their foundational/pioneering work and culture. They were able to attract the brightest and best RF engineers, whom they molded and mentored. Now, their thousands of industry best engineers, and $1 bil+ annual R&D, extend their IPR dominance.
Qualcomm has publicly said that it has submitted more proposals to the LTE standard that have been accepted into the standard, than any other company. LTE uses OFDMA on the downlink, SC-FDMA on the uplink, and MIMO antennae. Qualcomm has over 1,000 OFDM/OFDMA patents, and acquired 150 patents, and talented engineers, from Flarion, who pioneered mobile OFDMA. When they bought Airgo, they acquired important MIMO IPR and engineers.As of today, Qualcomm has signed 2 Tier 1 companies (Nokia and an unidentified second) to LTE licenses, and approx. 9 disclosed greenfield LTE licensees. Multi-mode 3G/LTE products are covered under existing 3G licenses.
Th Net, the QCOM ITC case had to do with GSM power control. Qualcomm has never had to sue on 3G CDMA flavors in order to negotiate a license.
P.S. OT - Please remove reference to my screen name from your tag line. Thank you.
Sorry, dclarke, you'll have to make your own prognostications. Since I own them both, I expect them both to grow.
Qualcomm bought approx. 150 OFDM/OFDMA patents with the purchase of Flarion, and has over 1,000 OFDM/OFDMA now. They had a non-public OFDM/OFDMA development program dating back to the 1990's. Additionally, they acquired pioneering MIMO IPR when they acquired Airgo.
Wow! Qualcomm signed another TD-SCDMA license with a mainland China company, supplying their domestic market, at Qualcomm's "world standard rate".