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.
JohnSamuel/Squingebob: As Squingebob posted, I would agree that your statement regarding the relationship of Blackrocks IDCC holding to the total value of their holdings is inaccurate:
“Just so you know, in BlackRocks fund that holds 10.3% of IDCC's outstanding shares, 14% of that funds total value is made up of IDCC's shares”.
As I previously posted, NASDAQs originally reported institutional holding of 81.20 % of IDCCs shares as of 31 Mar 2017 was overstated by approximately 10% due to duplicated reporting of Blackrocks total holding in their main corporate entity (BLACKROCK INC), and the holdings in individual funds .
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=131400545&txt2find=Blackrock
The latest NASDAQ report on institutional holding eliminated that duplicate reporting and now is down to 71.47%.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/idcc/institutional-holdings
The latest 13F-HR report for BLACKROCK INC, as of 31 Mar 2017, which covers 39 Managed funds, reported that the total value of the reported funds was $1,821,755,576,000. The reported value for their 4,004,219 share IDCC holdings was $330,348.000, which represented a miniscule percent of their total holdings.
So unless all of Blackrocks IDCC holdings are concentrated in a very small fund, which wasn't the case as of 31 Dec 2016 when they did report for the individual funds, I wuld say your 14% figure is not correct.
Another Supreme Court decision regarding patents. In a case regarding refilling of printer ink cartridges, the little guy won against the printer manufacturer.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/30/supreme-court-lexmark-sales-exhausted-patent-rights/id=83824/
IDCCfan: As you say an interesting read. To see the full IDCC comments:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/interdigital_inc.pdf
Jim: This is what IDCC's "Corporate Governance Principles" states about
"Shareholder Communications with the Board":
The Board believes that shareholders should have an opportunity to send communications to the Board. Shareholders and other parties interested in communicating directly with any individual director, including the Chairman, the Board as a whole or the non-employee directors as a group may do so by writing to Investor Relations, InterDigital, Inc., 9710 Scranton Road, Suite 250, San Diego, California 92121, or by sending an email to Directors@InterDigital.com. The Investor Relations Department reviews all such correspondence and, in consultation with appropriate directors and/or the Company’s Legal Department as necessary, generally screens communications from shareholders to identify communications that (i) are solicitations for products and services, (ii) relate to matters of a personal nature not relevant for the Company’s shareholders to act on or for the Board to consider or (iii) matters that are of a type that render them improper or irrelevant to the functioning of the Board or the Company. The Investor Relations department regularly forwards to the Board or specified director(s) a summary of all such correspondence and copies of all correspondence that deals with the functions of the Board or its committees or that otherwise requires their attention. Directors may, at any time, review a log of all correspondence the Company receives that is addressed to members of the Board and request copies of any such correspondence.
http://ir.interdigital.com/Cache/1001210156.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001210156&iid=4103938
Jim: That was old news. According to the article "In its earnings release in April, Qualcomm said it was out $974 million revenue reductions related to the BlackBerry arbitration decision."
When that announcement came out on April 12, QCOM's stocked closed down $1.96
Jeffree: Why post that article, the statistics are a year old for 1st qtr 2016. For the latest data covering 1st qtr 2017:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3725117
My comments on today's cash flow discussion.
A cash flow statement consists of three sub categories: cash flow from operating activities, cash flow from investing activities, and cash flow from financing activities. Investors are usually most concerned with cash flow from operating activities which, as the title implies, covers the normal operations of the business.
The key to operating cash flow and paying dividends is in Fish’s statement that
“As long as you have licenses that renew when due, as well as signing new licenses, you have 'cash flow' coming in. ONCE THE LICENSES EXPIRE OR NEW LICENSING DRIES UP, you have no incoming cash but you still have expenses (salaries, dividends, ongoing expenses, etc. with no cash coming in. You may evenually burn the $12 million and be 'out of cash'. “
IDCC is not a normal business where cash is generated by recurring product sales. IDCC’s cash is generated by patent royalty paying licenses granted to a small number of customers. Cash payments are made either quarterly based on licensees’ sales of royalty bearing products, or a lump sum amount is paid to cover all sales during a specified period. Recent licenses have been more of the lump sum payment type, which are accounted for in the deferred income accounts, rather than recurring quarterly payments which are recorded as income when received.. These lump sum payments have resulted in sharp variations in reported operating cash flow. For example, operating cash flow during 2016, 2015, and 2014 was positive at:
2016………….$431 million
2015………… 114 million
2014…… ……242 million
However, in the 1st qtr, 2017, because no new agreements were signed, reported operating cash flow was a negative (more out than in) $26 million.
Another point for consideration is that without new licenses IDCC’s revenues would probably be around the $400 million range. According to the 10-K:
“Based on current license agreements, we expect the amortization of fixed-fee royalty payments and the scheduled expiration of an agreement to reduce the December 31, 2016 deferred revenue balance of $621.2 million by $360.2 million over the next twelve months. Additional reductions to deferred revenue over the next twelve months will be dependent upon the level of per-unit royalties our licensees report against prepaid balances.”
This means that in the absence of new licenses a substantial portion of IDCC’s future reported revenue would not be generating cash.
Ia-idcc-fan: Analyzing cash flow is complicated. Besides stock buybacks a good portion of the difference is explained by the account you are looking at i.e. Net Cash and Cash Equivalents. According to the 10-K
“We classify all highly liquid investment securities with original maturities of three months or less at date of purchase as cash equivalents. Our investments are comprised of mutual and exchange traded funds, commercial paper, United States and municipal government obligations and corporate securities.”
Good cash management calls for investing excess cash over normal day to day requirements, so in addition to investing cash into cash equivalents as defined above, IDCC also invests excess cash into Short-Term Investments which according to IDCC:
“are investment grade government and corporate debt securities that have maturities of less than 3 years, and we have both the ability and intent to hold the investments until maturity.”
As of 31 Dec 2009, the short term investment total amount was $199 million. As of 31 Dec 2016, the balance was $549 million. Therefore the holdings in this account increased by $350 million during the period you analyzed.
mickey: My previous comments were about your statement that “Patrick told me that Avanci was going to be getting licenses for utility meters, and automobile technology”.
On their web site Avanci has separate sections that specifically discuss smart meters and connected cars. As noted below, these sections (and sections I previously posted), rather than stating that Avanci will be getting licenses that cover meters and automotive technologies, state that Avanci will be granting wireless technology licenses to the manufacturers of these products.
"Meters of today and tomorrow need access to communications technologies to keep them connected. But it can be difficult to know what technology rights you need to license – and what’s a fair price.
Avanci offers a license to patented essential wireless technology for your smart meter. All in one marketplace, with one conversation – speeding up the process of connecting your new device.
http://avanci.com/smart-meters/
Cars of today and tomorrow need a host of communications technologies to keep them connected. But it can be difficult for automakers to know what technology rights you need to license — and what’s a fair price.
Avanci offers a license to patented essential wireless technology for your connected car. All in one marketplace, with one conversation — speeding up the process of getting your next model to market.
http://avanci.com/connected-cars/
I prefer to believe what Avanci states their business plan to be, rather than what you claim you were told by Patrick.
bulldzr: Turning concepts into reality can be a long step by step process. The non technical article cited below covers the history, present status, and future of what we call the smart car.
https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/focus/internet-of-things/iot-in-automotive-industry.html
mickey: I believe you may have misinterpreted what was stated during your discussion with Patrick. You should access the Avanci website (http://avanci.com) to see what their plan is. Basically they are a licensing pool for standard essential wireless connectivity patents to be licensed to the "thousands of manufacturers" of various devices that will be used to make the IoT work. That is in contrast with the limited number of manufacturers of mobile phones and similar products that currently should license IDCC's standard essential wireless patents. The following are a couple of snippets from Avanci's web site:
What value do I receive with a license from Avanci for my connected device?
Avanci is licensing the essential technology (2G, 3G and 4G) that is necessary when adding wireless connectivity to a new product. A license from Avanci will cover the entire essential patent portfolio of the patent owners who have joined our platform, plus the patents of new licensors who subsequently join Avanci. Depending on the functionality of your product, it may be necessary to obtain licenses that cover non-essential and non-connectivity elements of the device.
Why create a licensing platform just for the Internet of Things?
With more than 26 billion devices estimated to connect by the year 2020, the Internet of Things and wireless technology is fueling an entirely new economy of products – creating opportunities for manufacturers that were never possible before. Many of the thousands of manufacturers entering the connected device space don’t have previous experience in licensing wireless technology – so it can be difficult for them to know what patents are needed and what’s a fair price.
Avanci makes the process easy. Our one-stop marketplace means manufacturers will receive a license to the patented essential wireless technology needed for their connected product, with one conversation and for one fair, flat rate – helping bring new products online faster and accelerating growth of the Internet of Things.
-------------
In regard to the "final resolution of the Microsoft/ Nokia settlement", According to IDCC's 8-K announcement of the settlement, what remains is turning the "framework" of a patent license agreement and technology collaboration agreement into final documents. Although part of the overall settlement agreement, it is independent of of the agreement's terms to drop all the legal action. from the 8-K:
"On May 9, 2017, InterDigital, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, “InterDigital”) entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile, Inc. and Microsoft Mobile Oy (collectively, “Microsoft”), pursuant to which the parties have agreed to terms for resolving all of their existing disputes, and entered into a framework for future discussions for a patent license agreement and regarding technology collaboration in key areas."
Paullee: After Nokia sold their mobile phone business, I thought of the remaining Nokia being primarily in the Telecon infrastructure and patent licensing business. Therefore, I was surprised to read that "Apple will resume carrying Nokia’s digital health products in its retail and online stores". Apparently Nokia is expanding into other areas. In regard to digital health products, from Nokia' last 20-F:
"In Digital Health, we entered the market through our acquisition of Withings, a pioneer in consumer-focused connected health devices. In the future, we see opportunities to scale globally by building on the powerful reach of the Nokia brand, expanding into corporate wellness and assessing opportunities to transition into business-to-business healthcare, in areas such as connected patient care."
In regard to the Withings acquisition:
http://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/tech-giant-nokia-acquire-digital-health-device-maker-withings-191-million
Paullee: Some more Supreme Court action regarding patent cases.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/334548-supreme-court-limits-venue-shopping-for-patent-cases
Paulee: It is wonderful what you can show with statistics. As the saying goes "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Just want to add that the Trans-Alaska pipeline was built with 48" diameter pipe, and that piping out of state water into California is not a new idea.
https://www.wired.com/2015/02/california-pipe-water-alaska/
mickey: Do you understand that the largest oil and gas pipelines are only 36" - 42" in diameter. The much talked about Keystone pipeline being only 36". Compare that with the 9 foot (108") water pipeline discussed in the previous post.
Your statement that "If you have enough workers it can be done fairly quickly." is a major simplification. Having to cross the Rockies with a 9' pipeline, even if it could be done, would be an engineering project that would require an extremely large work force, many billions of dollars, and probably many years to finalize.
You should read this article that discusses some of the problems that could be faced.
https://pgjonline.com/2015/01/12/challenges-facing-large-diameter-pipelines-crossing-mountains/
All this talk about a pipeline is OT, but it is a quiet Saturday, and the subject, unlike politics, is not controversial.
gejebr3: Yes, Blackrock has been steadily increasing their holdings this year.
As an over 5% holder they filed a 13G/A (amended ) report showing holdings of 3,398,051 shares as of 31 Dec 2016
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000035348017001054/interdigital.inc.txt
In Feb 2017, since they increased their holdings to over 10%, they were required to file another 13G/A report showing holdings of 3,603,066 shares as of 28 Feb 2017.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000021545717002898/interdigital.inc.txt
In this month’s quarterly 13F-HR report they now show holdings of 4,004,219 shares as of 31 Mar 2017 plus $300,000 of the IDCC notes
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000108636417000069/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml
gejebr3: Actually because of duplicate listings for Blackrock managers the reported 81.20% is overstated by approximately 10%.
If you go though the listing you will find that besides Blackrock Inc. being listed as holding 3,988,935 shares as of 31 Mar 2017, other Blackrock managers are also listed with reported holdings as of 31 Dec 2016. For example, Blackrock Fund Advisors are listed as holding 2,066,151 shares as of 31 Dec 2016.
What happened was that previously Blackrock’s individual managers would file a 13F-HR report listing their holdings; however, for the 31 Mar 2017 reporting period the individual fund managers filed a 13F-NT report that stated that no holdings were being reported and that their holdings were being reported by Blackrock Inc. In turn, Blackrock Inc. filed the normal 13F-HR and stated that their report included the holdings of 39 other managers.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000108636417000069/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml
Since the NASDAQ listing includes reported holdings from both the old (as of 31 Dec 2016) individual manager reports, and the latest (as of 31 Mar 2017) consolidated report there is duplicated reporting as to Blackrocks holdings.
gejebr3: If, as you stated, the statement about the buyback balance being about $8million is accurate, it would indicate that there was very significant buyback activity since March 31.
According to the first quarter 2017 10-Q there were no stock repurchases during the quarter. According to the 2017 10-K as of 31 Dec 2016, only $313,720,000 of the $400 million 2014 stock Repurchase Program had been spent. This would indicate an available balance of approximate $86 million as of 31 March. So unless there were very significant repurchases since 31 March, the stated amount may be wrong.
Note: Actually the number of shares outstanding as of April 25, 2017 was approximately 34,682,000, an increase over the approximately 34,679,000 shares outstanding as of 31 March 2017
Here is the proposed dismissal action of Microsoft's Delaware anti-trust suit thereby fulfilling one part of the settlement agreement. It is standard wording that doesn't give any details. I am sure the same wording was used for the three IDCC infringement actions,
" STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate that this action, including all claims and counterclaims, is dismissed with prejudice, each party bearing its own fees and costs."
The next filing should be the Judge issuing the order.
mickey: As far as I know, there is no publically available information as to sales of mobile phones by standards (2G, 3G, 4G) for a particular company. The information may be available in expensive private reports prepared by various reporting companies.
In regard to Nokia's 2G license having expired, that is not the case. As part of the 2006 settlement Nokia received a fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide license to all of IDCC's current and future patents for purposes of making or selling 2G products.
Microsoft's mobile product sales are pretty small. It is my understanding that current products are manufactured by Pegatron, as an ODM. Since Pegatron has a license with IDCC, no further royalties would be due IDCC for Microsoft products produced by Pegatron.
We don't know whether Nokia/Microsoft's domestic (US) sales were covered by the limited release in the settlement agreement. That was put forth as a possibility based on a previous offer by Microsoft.
mickey: Of course the settlement is not over. They still have to negotiate a license based on the framework that was agreed to. Until there is a signed license, the framework is just a piece of paper. Also, if Nokia didn't sell too many 3G/4G phones after 2007, how could IDCC state that they were owed over $3 billion?
mickey: In regard to the value of the patents IDCC is receiving from Huawei, according to Merritt's comment in the 2016 3rd qtr conference call the value of the half of the patents that were received was a little less than$8 million. The value of the remaining half that was to be received during 2017 apparently is in the same range.
"Bill Merritt
Yes, so as I mentioned, Charlie, the reason that we can’t recognize revenue at this point is that we made the determination that the value of the patents prior to the transfer is not determinable. That said [indiscernible] has accounting consequences. But that is obviously tied to my discussion around being on the low end of the range for guidance and I will also highlight that we mentioned and disclosed in the 10-Q, that half the patents have been transferred – the value of half the patents that transferred to date was a little less than $8 million. So while the second half is not a determinable from an accounting standpoint, you have a couple of guideposts there."
mickey: Below is a more chronological history of posts regarding your comments of billions owed. It starts with the post referred to by IDCCfan. Due to changed circumstances, what may have been stated in the past no longer applies, all we really know now is rather than receiving billions from Microsoft/Nokia, IDCC has agreed to accept $46 million.
As I have posted several times the only statement I could find regarding IDCC demanding billions was in a Feb 13, 2015 court filing by Microsoft:
“Given the state of the record, it simply cannot be found that Nokia and MMO’s offers have not been within the FRAND range or that IDC’s demands (of billions in royalties) have been.”
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=113190645
As you posted several times during 2015 your comments were that “billions” means more than one, but you did not specifically state 3 billion. see the following post for reference to your statements:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124499861
As far as I can determine the first time you used the 3 billion amount was in a June 3, 2016 post:
“I have said as well as Microsoft/Nokia that the amount of money IDCC is seeking from them will be huge. My amount is 3 billion….”
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=123070496
When questioned about the 3 million, in a post on August 16, 2016 , you stated that the 3 billion was from a Microsoft press release;
“If you go back and read the 3 billion was out of Microsoft statement. In that press release they said IDCC wanted to much for their patents. “
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=124492465
Apparently you are the only one who has seen that press release.
mickey: Knowing the details would be nice. However, making them all public would give potential licensees some idea about what type of special deals or concessions IDCC is willing to make in order to get an agreement. For example, IF the settlements limited release only covers US sales, which was a previous offer by Nokia, that would be a significant change from IDCC's position that a license should cover worldwide sales.
Your problem in wondering whether the $46 million is all the cash to be received under the settlement agreement apparently is based on your repeated belief that Microsoft/Nokia “OWES” IDCC billions. As I have previously posted to you, Microsoft/Nokia are only required to pay IDCC any amount that a court issues a judgement for or an amount agreed to between the parties in a settlement.
In this instance a “Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the “Settlement Agreement”) was agreed to. According to IDCC’s latest press release “The guidance includes the total amount to be paid pursuant to a second quarter 2017 settlement.” So the apparently related $46 million amount in the press release is all that will be received under this Settlement Agreement.
The question really is, in addition to the amount what does the Settlement Agreement cover. According to the 8-k filing there are the following three elements:
1. IDCC has agreed to a limited release on the past sales of certain Microsoft products, including Nokia terminal units sold during a limited period of time.
2. IDCC and Microsoft also have agreed to terms for dismissal by them and Nokia Corporation of all outstanding litigation and other proceedings
3. IDCC and Microsoft entered into a framework for future discussions for a patent license agreement and regarding technology collaboration in key areas.
Items 2 and 3 are self explanatory. In regard to item 1, the limited release, according to a legal dictionary “A general release encompasses all claims that are in existence between the parties and are within their contemplation when the release is executed. A specific release is generally limited to the particular claims specified therein.” The real question then is what does IDCC’s limited release cover/not cover. Since the 8-K release related wording talks about certain products sold during a limited time period, I assume that the sales of any other products not covered by the release could be subject to legal action by IDCC, or could be part of the “framework for future discussions for a patent license agreement”.
Ia-idcc-fan: Following along with your explanation, I would say the limited period would be between the April 26, 2006 effective date of their previous settlement agreement, and some time in May 2016 when Microsoft sold the phone business they acquired from Nokia to Foxconn.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/18/11699660/microsoft-foxconn-feature-phone-sale
magillagorilla: Since US patents have a 20 year life from specified filing dates, I doubt whether all the patents covered by the Nokia settlement agreement have expired.
Since IDCC was able to license other large mobile phone manufacturers, the question really is what went wrong during the past Nokia negotiations? Was IDCC really asking for unreasonable amounts; or, as I think some have suggested, conflicting personalities were involved?
magillagorilla: The big difference is that the 2005 payment was the result of an arbitration award clarifying the terms of an existing license. Since then in various court actions IDCC has not been able to prove that MSFT/Nokia has infringed on any IDCC patent , thereby losing any leverage to require MSFT/Nokia to pay for past production.
mickey: According to the announcement:
"InterDigital and Microsoft also have agreed to terms for dismissal by them and Nokia Corporation of all outstanding litigation and other proceedings among these companies and their affiliates, including, without limitation, the Microsoft Sherman Act Delaware Proceedings and the Delaware District Court Proceedings related to the 2007, 2011 and 2013 United States International Trade Commission Proceedings as previously disclosed in InterDigital, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.
Of the cases listed, only the Sherman Act Delaware proceeding was initiated by Microsoft. The three Delaware District Court ITC related proceedings were companion District Court cases filed by IDCC, when they filed the ITC complaint. Of the three only the one involving the'244 patent is active, with other two in a suspended state.
As of earlier today there were no filings regarding dismissal of the cases.
Jim; For the record. Unless the agreement meets the 8-K reporting requirements for filing under Item 1.01- Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, there is no "mandatory" filing requirement.
IDCC reported the agreement under Item 8.01-Other Events. this is a general, optional reporting category "to report events that are not specifically called for by Form 8-K, that the registrant considers to be of importance to security holders.”
Item 1.01 reporting requires specific details to be reported, and a copy of the agreement must be filed with the next 10-Q or 10-K after the 8-K report.
Although in the past IDCC reported some major licenses and agreements under item 1.01, they no longer do. Since IDCC’s primary business is licensing, I think that IDCC may be using the criteria that a reportable agreement is one “not made in the ordinary course of business” to avoid reporting.
mickey: Your statement that Microsoft "said clearly that IDCC was seeking over 3 billion", has never been supported by anyone other than you. Since you have repeatedly stated that as a fact, not an opinion, unless you can come up with a specific reference to support that statement, you should admit that you were wrong.
mickey: Agree that the $46 million in effect is found money. However, it is a far cry from the $3 billion that you have posted ad nauseam as being "owed" by Nokia/Microsoft to IDCC. So I hope we will not hear about that anymore.
IMO the settlement action is the result of the CAFC decision on IDCC’s appeal of the USPTO IPR case on the ‘244 patent. Except for one claim that was remanded to the USPTO, CAFC agreed with IPR decision against IDCC. Since in remand actions, the USPTO usually upholds their original decision, and this was the only patent in an active court case against Microsoft/Nokia, IDCC decided to cut their legal expenses and to settle for whatever they could get.
Based on the wording in the filing, it looks like the settlement may be an updated version of a previous Microsoft settlement offer that I had posted:
According to Microsoft’s anti trust filing:
“In January 2013, Nokia tendered to InterDigital a check for $25 million. That payment was more than sufficient to cover Nokia’s past and future U.S. sales through January 1, 2014 at the running royalty rate that InterDigital was then demanding for past sales on a worldwide basis. Likewise, in January 2015, Microsoft tendered to InterDigital a check in the amount of $28.5 million. That payment was more than sufficient to cover Microsoft’s and Nokia’s past U.S. sales through at least the end of 2014 at the royalty rate that InterDigital had demanded for past worldwide sales.”
Hydro-gen: The Microsoft announcement showed up in an SEC filing, without an accompanying press release, while the guidance was a press release that was picked up by reporting services.
felix: Since Microsoft's wireless devices i.e. phones, tablets, and laptops, apparently are being manufactured by IDCC's Pegatron licensee, I don't think a Microsoft license will result in any significant increase in licensing income.
https://nokiapoweruser.com/report-odm-pegatron-ready-to-begin-trial-production-of-surface-phone/
https://mspoweruser.com/pegatron-to-manufacture-the-surface-aio-says-edn/
IDCCfan: A recent personal experience that illustrates the different connectivity systems that can be involved in a single specific IoT function.
My wife, this year, had her old pacemaker replaced. The old unit would store the data collected, and semi-annually she would go to her doctor who would place some type of short range receiver over the place where the pacemaker was installed and download the stored data.
The new pacemaker system now allows for remote reading of the stored data. In addition to the implanted pacemaker we received a separate communicator device. The stored data will now be automatically sent to the pacemaker manufacturer on a pre scheduled basis where it can be accessed by her doctor.
So we have;
A device (pacemaker) that uses a short range wireless protocol to send information to the communicator device, which, in turn, depending on how it is set up can use one of the following four methods to send the stored information back to the device manufacturer;
…... Standard telephone line.
….. Cellular data network
….. Internet (using a USB Ethernet adapter)
….. Internet (using a wireless Internet adapter)
Her doctor can then access the stored database at the company using an Internet-enabled personal computer.
Her communicator device is set up to work on a cellular data network, which I understand is AT&T.
Since the data is confidential patient medical information, as you indicate appropriate security must be implemented in the collection, storage and distribution of the data.
IDCCfan: A good easy to understand explanation. For those who want to learn a little more, the following site lists eleven connectivity protocols in use (as of two years ago) with non-technical explanations as to their usage. The introduction states:
"There exists an almost bewildering choice of connectivity options for electronics engineers and application developers working on products and systems for the Internet of Things (IoT).
Many communication technologies are well known such as WiFi, Bluetooth, ZigBee and 2G/3G/4G cellular, but there are also several new emerging networking options such as Thread as an alternative for home automation applications, and Whitespace TV technologies being implemented in major cities for wider area IoT-based use cases. Depending on the application, factors such as range, data requirements, security and power demands and battery life will dictate the choice of one or some form of combination of technologies. These are some of the major communication technologies on offer to developers."
https://www.rs-online.com/designspark/eleven-internet-of-things-iot-protocols-you-need-to-know-about
patopinion: I believe Avanci currently Is only about cellular connectivity patents. The following is from the white paper that you previously posted:
"Avanci has created a pricing model that provides patent licenses covering standard-essential wireless technology to the IoT ecosystem using well-established FRAND licensing principles. Including 2G, 3G and 4G technologies at this time, this approach ensures necessary patent rights are available to product developers, while providing a return on investment to wireless technology patent holders."
Also, from IDCC's 10-K:
"In third quarter 2016, InterDigital joined Avanci, the industry’s first marketplace for the licensing of cellular standards-essential technology for the Internet of Things (IoT). The licensing platform brings together some of InterDigital’s peers in standards-essential technology leadership, and makes 2G, 3G and 4G standards-essential patents available to IoT players in specific product segments with one flat-rate license. The Avanci licensing programs in specific product segments for the IoT industry will provide access to the entire applicable standards-essential wireless patent portfolios held by all of the platform participants, as well as any additions to their portfolios during the term of the license."
IDCCfan: Your post correctly points out that there are other IoT methods of connectivity besides cellular. From the little I have read and can understand on the subject, 4G LTE is a good break through for the use of cellular for connectivity; but, not until 5G is installed and implemented, will cellular become the primary method of connectivity. I have no idea how this will affect IDCC and it's business model.