I will nearly guarantee that there will be no lengthy decision within a week, and I will, in fact, guarantee that there will be no discussion of Nokia or anyone else abusing the process. If there is a lengthy opinion, it will simply go through each of Nokia's arguments and indicate why it is legally corrrect or incorrect.

Looks like we're back to the days of trading 200,000 shares and no real movement. Fun.

Not true. The length of time it takes to render a decision can and does depend on many things including how busy the Court is (I note that during the holidays, federal courts are slow). Also, if the Court decides to issue a lengthy opinion to discuss the issues in depth, then that takes time as well.

Isn't it correct to say that they "would be" royalty bearing to IDCC if the people who sell them actually licensed with us. As of know, as I understand it, some have and some have not.

Depends on the judge. I've had some give clear signals, others who say "hello," listen to the arguments and then say "thank you, i'll take it under advisement."

Not pessimistic, but realistic. Courts, as a general matter, do not rule on dispositive motions like this one from the bench. While it's not impossible, i highly doubt it will occur.

Ah, but you miss the context of OUR conversation....which involved whether the stock would hit 20. I said no. And, while I intended on being a gentleman and not mentioning that I was right...since you raised the issue, i'll say it - "I was right."

Nokia has the right to seek to vacate or modify the award at the district court level, with the right to appeal the district court's ruling to the Court of Appeals. IDCC itself does not dispute that fact.

You only cite to a small portion of the opinion, which has nothing to do with the holding. In fact, the Court remanded the case back to the district court for it to be heard. If you read the whole Opinion, it actually confirms (albeit in dicta and by implication) that you CAN appeal the confirmation of an arbitration award.

I want to reiterate...for those who think that there will be a ruling from the bench tomorrow, I highly doubt it. In the normal course, the judge will hear oral argument from both sides, potentially ask a few questions and then thank everyone for their time. As Ghors noted, on determinative motions like this one, it is rare for a judge to rule from the bench. Rather, we will have to wait from a few days to several months for a ruling. While I have no reason to expect this to occur, a ruling on this motion can take just as long as it is taking the delaware court to rule on the motion to dismiss.

Love the (false) hype. Nasdaq up 25 points, we release earnings guidance and we are down...yet you cheer. Ridiculous.

interesting, as i'm still correct. This "temporary" sale is lasting a bit longer than you expected. No wait, i'm even more correct as the price is lower now than it was when I made the original message.

Not that I'm glad it occurred, by my prediction appears to be correct.

Say what you want. We'll let the issue die and talk again at 4:00pm (when we haven't crossed 20). To be clear, i'd like to cross 20, but it just won't happen.

Well, so far I'm correct. And, I stand by my belief we will not cross 20 today.

You are more optimistic than I, but I hope you're right.

I wonder if we will penetrate the so-far inpenetrable number 20.

I, for one, would be very surprised if IDCC booked any revenue before the Nokia issue is definitively resolved. If IDCC is successful at the trial court, there is still the issue of appeal, which is far from a guarantee. Moreover, with an appeal, the revenue would likely not be received for at least another year.

According to IDCC's website, analysts expected .06/share for the 4th quarter. Am I correct that even at the high-end of this guidance (i.e., $42M) we are still well below that?

I agree on the volume issue, but I have a very strong suspicion we'll be seeing the 18s today.

Revenue guidance - 39 to 42 million. What were the analysts expecting? My guess is lower since we have traded down 50 cents already.

First, I expect even if the judge rules from the bench (which I doubt will happen) there will be a period of time before the judge issues a formal order, which will contain findings of fact and law for the appellate court to review. The losing party has 30 days from the date that order is entered to file for an appeal, and then the briefing begins. The briefing will take approximately 3 months to complete, then if there is oral argument, that will normally occur approx 2 months later, with a ruling 2-7 months after that. It's not a short process.

I love when people post things they know absolutely nothing about. No the appeal cannot be rejected "almost immediately." The briefing process alone will take months, and even without oral argument being allowed (which it will) a ruling on the appeal will take a minimum of 6 to 9 months. If they appeal, expect no resolution until late 2006 or early 2007 (at the least).

Two things. First, Nokia's election to use its RIGHT to appeal the award is not considered non-compliance. It's a right that Nokia maintains. Second, the "penalty" for electing to use that right - if Nokia is unsuccessful - is interest. That's a common "penalty" and one that should not be understated given that its equivalent to tens of millions of dollars. I will bet ten (no fifty) to one that there is no injunctive relief "penalty" in the arbitration award.

There is no such thing as IDCC seeking "Summary judgment" to enjoin Nokia in this proceeding. If Nokia appeals, the penalty is simply that the interest rate payments continue to increase at a higher than market rate.

Three random AH trades at $19.60; not much volume

What does that have to do with Spree's ridiculous claim that he somehow knows we are signing a license, perhaps today?

And where, praytell, did you get this inside knowledge? And, why should we believe you?

The simple answer to all of these questions is that if IDCC prevails at the district court, Nokia will not be required to pay pending an appeal. Further, IDCC will not bring a breach of contract action, that's what the arbitration covers. The money IDCC will get from the contract comes from the arbitration. Moreover, i dont see why a bond will be needed. Bonds cover judgment amounts. Here, there is no judgment amount, just a declaration. The only thing IDCC gets from further delay during the appeal (and the only thing discouraging Nokia from a further appeal) is additional interest.

Sorry, that's not legally correct. Not paying while you are appealing a court order is not contempt.

We are now at a price below where we closed on Tuesday. That is, our price is below what it was when we learned of the settlement. Market takes it as a loss.

Back to the uneventful days of 250,000 shares traded and no real movement past the 18s.

Unlike other calls where we were told that we should look forward to more licenses in the "near future" or "this quarter," all we were told today was new licenses over "the coming year." Unfortunately, it sounds like we're going to be in a bit of a rut for a while since it doesn't appear that there are new licensees on the horizon and Nokia will take a few months to get through the courts. 18s are here for a while.

But, LU is only paying $700,000 a quarter and it is one of the largest infrastructure suppliers. We might get the others, but how much money will we get?

Yahoo says analyst's estimates were .13 to .15, we missed? That and the $14m may make for not as good a day as we hoped. Oh well. Back to the waiting game of "expected" negotiations and potential results. We are down in pre-market, looks unfortunately like we'll be back in the 18s again (the place we continue to stay on "potential").

It will be interesting to see how the market reacts (no indication yet). That said, it might be hard to delineate between a reaction of the settlement and a reaction to earnings.

Settlement:

At first glance, the settlement gives a gut feel of unimpressive. The dollar amount is lower than expected, and I do not believe a settlement involving 2 Tantivy patents can trigger Nokia's 3G license. The devil is in the "expected" negotiations. If we get a broader license, then this is a great deal (the $14m on the 2 Tantivy patents is basically a bonus). But, when will the negotiations take place? Is it a framework like Ericy, where we still haven't seen a license? Unfortunately, I don't expect much information from the cc today, except positive, vague comments like "we looking forward to working with LU" and "LU is a good partner." As is the norm for IDCC, only time will tell.

Isn't LU the largest infrastructure company for these patents? If so, we are getting $700k per quarter from them meaning that any other licenses on these patents will bring nominal revenue.

So much for IDCC's mantra of "we only license our entire patent portfolio." While the last line is midly encouraging, I wonder why the term "expect" was used, as opposed to the parties "will" or "intend" to negotiate.

There seems to be a never-ending supply at 19.75