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.
Tom asked about Samsung III terms of reference. Merritt does not know if terms of reference have been defined.
IMO..the comment was an 'over 1 year' licensee' not 'other tier 1' licensee.
RIMM is an over 1 year licensee. The recent license is a 3G upgrade. IMO
26 million from an existing 'over 1 year' licensee in early 4th QTR. (I wonder if this payment was from RIMM???)
Non essentiality does not mean non-infringement in UK NOK trial.
Customer testing of ASIC expected to begin at end of Nov 2007
185 - 190 million from the Samsung arbritration confirmation at SDNY
According to IDCC conference call...60% of revenue is driven solely by 3G
UK NOK trial is not significant in IDCC world-wide licensing efforts
Samsung arbritration is moving forward now with oral arguments on 11/19/2007
1 month ahead in schedule for ASIC
Infineon is shipping 3G solution with IDCC inside and IDCC gets paid.
Novatel is entering the 3G market with IDCC inside and IDCC gets paid.
100 million cash buyback reflect continued confidence in licensing and balance sheet going forward.
I sent the following to my two United States' Senators to make them aware of this constituent's position on this matter.
I am a resident and a voter of the State of <name of state>. In addition, I am an individual investor in Interdigital, Inc. I am interested in the recent Patent Reform legislation. I am strongly in favor of protecting the legal rights of the inventor for patented intellectual property inventions and strong legal remedies to enforce those intellectual property patents. I support the efforts of Interdigital, Inc. in regard to Patent Reform legislation.
I have provided several links below that outline the position of Interdigital, Inc. and the challenges Interdigital, Inc is facing in its attempt to enforce its intellectual property patents.
InterDigital Addresses U.S. Senate Regarding Patent Reform
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1012308&highlig....
Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
“Patent Reform: The Future of American Innovation”
Written Testimony of Mr. Bruce G. Bernstein, Chief Intellectual Property and Licensing Officer
InterDigital Communications Corporation, King of Prussia, PA
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2803&wit_id=6509
Some additional information regarding InterDigital struggles to enforce its patents
InterDigital Files Complaint Against Nokia with International Trade Commission
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1037869&highlig....
InterDigital Files Complaint Against Samsung Electronics with International Trade Commission
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=977361&highligh....
Best Regards,
SAM has been riding the coattails of NOK for some time. IMO SAM will want to be sure it is getting the same deal as NOK. They may negotiate separately but will want to know the other's outcome before reaching final agreement. JMHO
Since the ALJ consolidated the cases, does a consolidated SAM/NOK defense comes with it or is it 2 against 1 scenario. My only hope is that the ALJ can clearly discern the issues and facts presented by IDCC and rule accordingly and appropriately in IDCC favor.
We shall see...
Are these correct statements? The ITC is only about infringement. The ITC does not get involved in matters regarding royalty rates.
Yes IMO ATT does sell Motorola 3G. I am told that ATT will be offering one SNE 3G phone in the future.
Good job loop...keep up the great and very relevant posts.
croth..It only implies the legal hurdle necessary for a near improbable Samsung III arbitration to take place..IMO nothing more and does not suggest in any way that a Samsung III arbitration is required IMO.
croth said regarding loophole post...
"Your statement leads me to confusion why you find it hard to believe that anyone could confuse the following:
As far as the Samsung III is concerned, the new Tribunal must find that the Tribunal in Samsung II erred in the treatment of the IDCC/Nok settlement and it resulted in not allowing Samsung to substantially present its case.
That seems to imply another arbitration may be required."
In addition, the liquidation of a million or more shares of IDCC stock by Goldman-Sachs without any relationship to any negative activity at IDCC.
I was in an ATT store today. It brought a smile as I noticed the Apple iPhone was at the front of the store near the door as you walked in(of course), next to it were the Sierra Wireless modem cards, followed by the Research in Motion (RIM) Blackberry products, and then the LG products.
On the far wall and moving toward the back were the Motorola, Samsung, and Nokia phones and a Pantech phone was at the far end of the store.
ATT, keep pushing and selling those 'licensed' products with Interdigital inside!!!
thx..rev and vg_future...eom
Is it possible the ITC could rule the same way with Samsung because of the pending ICC Samsung III?
The number of IP addresses is not based upon the number internet service providers used by someone. Most people do not have one static IP address. Most IP addresses are dynamically assigned using DHCP. You might have one IP address on your first connection to the internet and when you restart your computer you will be assigned another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) is a protocol used by networked computers (clients) to obtain IP addresses and other parameters such as the default gateway, subnet mask, and IP addresses of DNS servers from a DHCP server. The DHCP server ensures that all IP addresses are unique, e.g., no IP address is assigned to a second client while the first client's assignment is valid (its lease has not expired). Thus IP address pool management is done by the server and not by a human network administrator.
DHCP emerged as a standard protocol in October 1993. DHCP is a successor to the older BOOTP protocol, whose leases were given for infinite time and did not support options. Due to the backward-compatibility of DHCP, very few networks continue to use pure BOOTP. As of 2006, RFC 2131 (dated March 1997) provides the latest DHCP definition. As of 2004, the latest non-standard of the protocol is RFC 3315 (dated July 2003), which describes DHCPv6 (DHCP in an IPv6 environment).
Carl Icahn bought Trans World Airlines, sold off all of its profitable assets, and flew the remainder of the airline and the share price into the ground doing nothing for its shareholders and its employees.
IMO...If Carl Icahn is your mentor and protege, then leave IDCC alone.
True. I just found it interesting in the wake of this 2005 decision involving Samsung.
SAMSUNG AGREES TO PLEAD GUILTY AND TO PAY $300 MILLION CRIMINAL
FINE FOR ROLE IN PRICE FIXING CONSPIRACY
Korean Company Pays Second Largest Criminal Antitrust Fine in U.S. History
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2005/212002.htm
Yes, it definitely offers a very interesting perspective of the proposed Samsung consolidation...
http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?mode=read&id=224799
good post by eneerg1 on the other board on consolidation..EOM
And perphaps NOK and SAMs legal expense are cut in half or shared by both NOK and SAM? IDCC pays full cost while NOK and SAM get off with reduced cost.
I also agree with the Count's reponse...I ask that the board's legal experts/attorneys (loop, whizz, ghors, etc) continue to post their opinions. Your opinions are greatly appreciated.
Lawyers don't get discouraged
Please keep providing the valuable information from your education and experience. Some will ask questions because the law is not always logical, so your responses will clarify and help them understand. Others will argue and oppose you, even though they are completely ignorant, and refuse to accept your answer. Be assured that the vast majority lurking out here know who's opinions are based on a solid foundation and who's aren't. Don't focus on the ingnorant few posters - ignore them. If they don't want to accept your expertise it's their loss. Please don't make it everyone else's loss too.
Thanks,
Frank
Sanity check: Will WiMAX be a 3G killer, or is it vice versa?
Date: October 7th, 2007
Blogger: Jason Hiner
Category: Wireless, Wimax, 3G
Tags: VoIP, Mobile, Network, 3G, Ericsson Inc., Sprint Communications, Verizon Wireless, HSPA, WiMAX, Wi-Fi, Wireless, Jason Hiner
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=556&tag=nl.e138
Fierce competition can bring out the best and the worst in businesses, and it also makes for great theater. In the technology world over the past three decades, we have watched commercial empires rise and fall with amazing swiftness and drama. New competitors have arisen out of nowhere and trumped established dynasties in a matter of years, as Microsoft did to outmaneuver IBM in the personal computer business, as Linux did to marginalize Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics in the UNIX server market, and as Google did to race past Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft in Internet search.
Now there’s a new technology peeking over the horizon that could cause a major shake-up in the tech industry: WiMAX, which I wrote about last week in my article “Sanity check: Is WiMAX almost here and will it unlock the next stage of the Internet?” WiMAX has the potential to create new markets, change the scope of the Internet, revolutionize the mobile phone landscape, and upend empires.
However, although WiMAX now has a large stable of blue blood supporters in the tech industry — led by Intel and joined by Motorola, Samsung, and Sprint — and a huge cash investment from them, it also has a healthy share of doubters. Those naysayers believe that it will be a multibillion dollar flop, and that by the time it’s deployed widely enough to make a mass market challenge, the world’s existing cellular carriers will have already beat it to the punch with a fully deployed version of 3G wireless.
The WiMAX vs. 3G cellular showdown is poised to become one of the next great market battles in the tech industry. Fortunes will be made and lost in this battle, and the user experience of the Internet will be irreversibly changed (hopefully, for the better) in the process.
The WiMAX advantagesConceptually, WiMAX has been designed as an Internet access technology and not as a replacement to the existing cellular networks that have gained global scale during the past decade. But since WiMAX is built around IP and has been designed from the ground up to support strong QoS and security, WiMAX provides an excellent platform to run VoIP.
As a result, it is natural to associate WiMAX with VoIP, which is rapidly replacing many wire-based phone lines because it makes much more efficient use of the bandwidth and lines and opens up voice to a whole new range of applications.
That’s why WiMAX is sometimes viewed as the technology that will make the current cellular networks obsolete. It’s actually VoIP that is the disruptor. WiMAX — once it’s fully deployed — will simply provide the roaming global Internet access that will bring VoIP to the same corners of the earth that cellular towers have covered today, and WiMAX could spread that coverage even farther.
Initially, WiMAX was compared more to Wi-Fi — except with much longer range — than it was to cellular networks. WiMAX providers are essentially ISPs that provide either Fixed WiMAX or a combination of both Mobile WiMAX (for roaming users) and Fixed WiMAX (for home or small business access, very similar to cable or DSL).
There are several important factors that distinguish WiMAX from other wireless technologies and make it a platform that so many tech heavyweights have been willing to support:
IP-based network — Since WiMAX is built on IP, it natively runs existing IP-based products, services, and utilities. VoIP is one example. This also enables much easier and cheaper network monitoring and management with standard tools.
A flatter, simpler topology — Because it has been designed as a data network from the ground up, WiMAX has a much simpler network topology than cellular networks, which have had to add extra layers and invent new tricks to enable their technology to handle data. WiMAX takes less equipment and less time to set up than traditional cellular infrastructure or wide-scale Wi-Fi. Figure A provides a quick look at the WiMAX topology.
Lower CAPEX and OPEX — As a simpler architecture that uses less network equipment, WiMAX takes lower capital expenditures (CAPEX) to build networks and lower operating expenditures (OPEX) to maintain them. Naturally, this can result in lower service costs for end users. But just as critical is the fact that this enables WiMAX to scale very low for small installations and to quickly scale higher to meet large growth on demand.
Low-cost interface chips — Chipset leader Intel and chipmakers such as Sequens and Beceem have always thought of WiMAX as a mass market technology and so have architected WiMAX chip solutions aimed at large production and low cost. This has resulted in inexpensive network interface devices such as WiMAX modems and PC cards, but more important, it will make it easier for computer and consumer electronics makers to soon embed WiMAX chips into a lot of different kinds of devices.
Figure A: WiMAX topology (click image to expand)
(My comment: You will have to go to the link to see Figure A)
Source: Navini Networks
The 3G alternativeNo company has been a more outspoken critic of WiMAX than Ericsson, especially in 2007. That may seem strange since Ericsson is not a cellular carrier, but the company is a major seller and developer of cellular infrastructure, and an important supplier of cellular handsets through its Sony Ericsson partnership.
Ericsson has played a critical role in the development of cellular data networks, including various 3G platforms, GSM, WCDMA, HSPA, and the technology that it thinks will ultimately trump WiMAX: LTE (Long-Term Evolution) wireless. Ironically, LTE is almost more similar to WiMAX than it is to existing cellular technologies and it will require an investment (and technological transformation) on the same scale as WiMAX.
Initially, Ericsson was a member of the WiMAX Forum and a lukewarm supporter of WiMAX technology as part of the future evolution of cellular networks. But this spring, Ericsson announced its decision to close down its WiMAX development projects and shift all of its focus to LTE. Since then, Ericsson has been actively touting the fact that its current HSPA-based networks will already have comparable performance to WiMAX when WiMAX launches on a large scale in 2008. The primary reasons that Ericsson thinks it can get away with HSPA are:
Bandwidth — In cooperation with carriers in its home country of Sweden, Ericsson has already deployed an HSPA-based network with mobile broadband speeds of 3.6 Mbps downlink and 1 Mbps uplink. A software upgrade that is currently in progress will double that bandwidth to 7.2 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up, and the network itself will eventually have the capacity for 14.4 Mbps downloads. WiMAX will have the capacity for about 10 Mbps. However, the usable speed for mobile broadband is expected to be about 2 Mbps. An Ericsson representative who lives in Sweden told me that he currently gets an average of 2 Mbps on the HSPA network in Sweden, and said that it is so reliable that he often stays on that network, rather than switching over to Wi-Fi, when he is working on his laptop at home. Ericsson views this type of experience as indicative of what current cellular networks will do in the near future.
Existing infrastructure — It took a decade to build out the current global wireless infrastructure. The cellular carriers doubt that WiMAX will be able to duplicate the breadth of this network within a few years. As such, they believe that it makes more sense to simply upgrade the current infrastructure.
Existing relationships — Cellular carriers can leverage existing relationships with customers and business partners to make it easier to transition users to mobile broadband. That will be much less expensive than WiMAX’s task of marketing a new product and explaining what it is, what it replaces, and how it will help the user.
Cellular IP — Ericsson is advising cellular carriers to transform their existing infrastructure into IP-based networks using Softswitch and the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). If cellular can turn its networks into IP networks, it could pre-empt the threat from VoIP.
Fixed wireless — With its current cellular infrastructure, Ericsson wants to provide the same kind of fixed services that WiMAX is touting for spreading broadband Internet to lots of new places. With a widely deployed network and new fixed broadband modems to access it, this is an easy play for cellular carriers. It’s already starting to happen in many places, including Sweden.
While Ericsson may be the most vocal detractor of WiMAX, it isn’t alone. Verizon Wireless has also opted to sit out WiMAX and put its efforts into expanding 3G and developing LTE. Mobile chip maker Qualcomm has also balked at building WiMAX technologies and focused instead on further developing 3G cellular chips.
Sprint, which will become the world’s largest provider of WiMAX services with its major deployments in 2008, even has some internal detractors of its WiMAX strategy. Reports surfaced last week that investors and board members at Sprint have lost confidence in CEO Gary Forsee. They are unhappy that Sprint has not expanded its cellular business as quickly as AT&T and Verizon Wireless, but primarily they have grown impatient waiting for the huge investment in WiMAX to payoff, and some of them may even be losing faith about how much of a competitive advantage it will give Sprint.
So we have Intel, Samsung, and Sprint on the one side betting heavily on the success of WiMAX, and we have Ericsson, Verizon Wireless, and Qualcomm on the other side betting heavily against it. Even in a converged marketplace that will likely have a place for both WiMAX and 3G in the short term, there will be big winners and big losers in this battle. And even the neutral players that are playing both sides, such as AT&T, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, and Nortel, will be affected as well.
Sanity checkFigure B provides a nice comparison of cellular (3G) and WiMAX and includes Wi-Fi in the mix as well. The graph shows that the current strengths of cellular include coverage, mobility, and QoS (voice quality), but it is also expensive for data, and the performance speeds are not great in most places. Wi-Fi has great performance and is relatively inexpensive (for small, localized deployments), but it’s not very mobile, has inconsistent coverage, and has voice quality issues. WiMAX does not have the top marks in any of these five categories, but it does at least have solid capabilities in all five.
Figure B: Comparing WiMAX, WLAN, and cellular
(My comment: You will have to go to the link to see Figure B)
Source: Intel and Rethink Research Associates
Ultimately, it’s still too early to predict the winners here. Nevertheless, I think there are three important factors to watch in determining who wins and why:
1. Encryption modules vs. SIM cards
Starting next year, WiMAX networking chips are going to be inexpensively embedded into tons of new laptop computers, phones, and consumer electronic devices. Cellular technologies such as HSPA simply will not be able to match that scale for one simple reason: SIM cards (Subscriber Identity Modules). Devices that connect to the cellular network must have a physical SIM card. The combination of cellular network chips and SIM cards is more expensive than the WiMAX chips and not as easy to deploy and manage.
In place of SIM cards, WiMAX uses software encryption modules that are much more configurable, flexible, and scalable. If WiMAX starts to catch on in lots of different consumer electronic devices, this will be a win for WiMAX and a strike against 3G. Of course, 3G could switch out SIM cards for a software solution, but that would likely take years to show up in the market. The other strategic option for cellular carriers could be to focus on the phone as the mobile broadband connection hub and use Bluetooth or Wireless USB for last-mile connectivity to consumer electronic devices.
2. True performance
While 3G cellular advocates such as Ericsson talk about and demonstrate HSPA bandwidth speeds that are equivalent to WiMAX, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the performance is the same. Because WiMAX is IP-based at the core and has a much simpler network topology, it should have better spectral efficiency and lower latency than cell networks. Spectral efficiency is the amount of data that can be transmitted over a certain amount of bandwidth. In essence, spectral efficiency is the true performance of a network link.
The other performance issue to watch is scale. WiMAX advocates claim that the current cellular networks simply would not be able to support wide-scale mobile broadband Internet traffic. They claim that it is a wireless spectrum issue. WiMAX will have a lot more wireless spectrum to occupy, which is the equivalent of a much fatter pipe. While these factors appear to favor WiMAX, it’s important to realize that WiMAX still has not been put to the test on a large scale, while cellular providers have been managing high volume wireless connections on the their current networks for over a decade, and that gives them a major advantage in experience.
3. Customer perception and demand
Cellular carriers will have a much lower bar to hurdle in convincing customers that next-generation wireless services will bring the same kind of broadband experience that they have at home to their mobile phone, and by extension to their laptop and any other devices that can connect to their mobile phone via Bluetooth. Many mobile users are already using Bluetooth devices and are using their phones for messaging and basic Internet services, such as checking the weather plus a few favorite Web sites that have mobile editions. In this scenario, the 3G-powered cell phone essentially becomes a mobile equivalent of a DSL or cable modem.
The alternative scenario in which WiMAX could trump 3G would be if WiMAX becomes the equivalent of the next generation of Internet access in the minds of consumers, in the same way that cable/DSL were in relation to dial-up. That could happen if WiMAX pulls off a well-orchestrated combination of mobile and fixed WiMAX, in which a user has one high-speed Internet connection (10 Mbps) at home or the office using a fixed modem and can then roam with mobile Internet (2 Mbps) while away from home with a laptop, phone, and/or other mobile devices — all for about the same price they are currently paying for stationary broadband. That would be a revolutionary experience.
The other big mobile Internet battleground for 3G and WiMAX will be with mobile business users. Sprint has an established business unit dedicated to enterprises and will certainly exploit that to offer Mobile WiMAX. However, other cellular carriers also have established relationships and have more mature, more widespread networks to offer. Since enterprise are allergic to new and unproven technologies, 3G has a good opportunity to hold on to that business in the short term. WiMAX will probably have its best luck with small businesses, entrepreneurs, and independent consultants.
Your takeWhat’s your opinion of the WiMAX vs. 3G battle? What are the most important features you would like see in these next generation wireless networks? How will all of this affect your choice of ISPs and mobile carriers in the future?
Join the discussion.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=240153
Maybe that is why IDCC filed against Samsung at the ITC. We shall see...
robweis.."By agreeing to FRAND, NOK says I have the right to use this IPR, and will pay FRAND as soon as FRAND is determined."
I disagee. Using without paying, IMO, is infringement and that is what the ITC will decide and potentially will issue the embargo that will not be stayed pending a decision regarding FRAND. We shall see...
NOK tried to establish its own FRAND rates with QCOM by sending QCOM a check. QCOM disagreed and send the check back to NOK. If I remember correctly, I believe QCOM has a case before the ITC regarding infringement by NOK.
Rob, I will agree with you in a sense about an "implicit contract". However IMO, that implicit contract does not give NOK and Samsung an "implicit or explicit" contractual right to sell products containing IDCC IPR.
IMO, any ITC injunction will stand until FRAND issues are resolved between the parties or the court decides.
JeffreyHF, I disagree. IDCC suffers from its own market pressures to share price as well as its own legal challenges to its IPR, royalty rates, business practices, etc.
Certainly the stock price movement of IDCC vs. QCOM is not comparable in the last 3 months in particular since GS sell-off.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=1y&s=IDCC&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=qcom
The only thing that has occurred recently of any negative consequence, IHMO, has been the sell off of IDCC by Goldman-Sachs. The shorts loved it all the way down to $19. IDCC needs a major news event or a large instution buys into IDCC to drive up the demand for shares. AAPL just got caught up in the GS sell-off unfortunately. IMHO
IMO...I find it amazing that NOK will pay $8.1 billion for a GPS application that will function on wireless technology but wants to pay IDCC approximately nothing for technology that helps to make wireless communication possible and the GPS application more valuable.
We shall see...
He can not...its prior art..LOL
InterDigital to Present at the America's Growth Capital Fourth Annual Emerging Growth Conference
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa., Sep 19, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc.
(NASDAQ:IDCC) today announced that a company executive will present at the
America's Growth Capital Fourth Annual Emerging Growth Conference. The
presentation will take place on Thursday, September 20, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern
Time at the Sheraton Boston Hotel in Boston, MA.
A company executive will present InterDigital's strategy, an update on the
business, and the company's unique positioning to capitalize on growth trends in
the wireless industry. The presentation will be web cast live and archived for
replay for one month following the conference in the Investing section of
InterDigital's web site.
About InterDigital
InterDigital designs, develops and provides advanced wireless technologies and
products that drive voice and data communications. InterDigital is a leading
contributor to the global wireless standards and holds a strong portfolio of
patented technologies which it licenses to manufacturers of 2G, 2.5G, 3G and 802
products worldwide. Additionally, the company offers baseband product solutions
and protocol software for 2G/3G multimode terminals and converged devices.
InterDigital's differentiated technology and product solutions deliver
time-to-market, performance and cost benefits. For more information, please
visit InterDigital's web site: www.interdigital.com.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
SOURCE: InterDigital, Inc.
CONTACT: InterDigital, Inc.Media Contact:Jack Indekeu, +1 610-878-7800jack.indekeu@interdigital.comorInvestor Contact:Janet Point, +1 610-878-7800janet.point@interdigital.com
Copyright Business Wire 2007
IDCC What If scenario--
1. The iPhone could possibly use a chip from Infineon that includes IDCC 3G technology. IDCC gets paid based upon IDCC's agreement with Infineon.
2. The iPhone could possibly be manufactured by Quanta. IDCC gets paid based upon IDCC's agreement with Quanta.
3. IDCC signs a license with Apple for a lesser royalty amount because IDCC may get paid based upon 1 and/or 2 above. That is why the financial terms of the Apple deal were not as significant as getting the deal done in this case. IDCC wanted the market/media exposure gained from being associated with Apple.
I am willing to believe Bill Merritt did not abandon his earlier stated strategy (not quoted and paraphrased), We are not going to sign a license simply for the sake of getting the deal done. It has to make financial sense for IDCC.
IMO (and hopeful)...after Apple's Tuesday press conference and within a few days following, the IDCC/Apple technology relationship may become a lot clearer. Just my opinion.
IMO...after Apple's press conference next Tuesday all pieces of Apple's iPhone 3G market strategy for Europe (and US) will be public.
IDCC will then be able to make additional/new announcments and everything will be clarified.
JMHO...
Rumors of the Day: Wireless technology provider InterDigital's (IDCC - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) licensing deal with Apple (AAPL - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating) could indicate a 3G iPhone is coming, according to StreetInsider.com. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, InterDigital said it "granted a license to Apple under InterDigital's patent portfolio covering the current iPhone and certain future mobile phones, if any." InterDigital shares soared $2.99, or 14.1%, to $24.20, while Apple dropped $3.60 to $131.89.
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/stockpickr/10378558.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FR...
An ITC action/injunction mitigates NOK from playing these legal games and NOK does NOT like it !!!
M3S...But while Nokia does not favor ITC actions, they think its okay to run around the world filing court actions that take years and millions of dollars
IMO Apple's price reduction of the 2G i-Phone is just a precursor to a future announcement of a 3G i-Phone offering for the holiday season. AT&T has rolled out 3G, although not in all coverage areas. Just IMO.
First of all, many thanks to Loophole for drafting his opinion and posting it on IHUB. I have incorporated some additional InterDigital references at the bottom of Loop's opinion. Any comments before I send it to my U.S. Congressman and Senator are appreciated.
I agree with the following opinion posted by "loophole73" on the Investors Hub message board for InterDigital, Inc. on August 3, 2007. I also communicated my support of this opinion to President George W. Bush
Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of Mr. Kantor and Mr. Yeutter. The small inventor literally does not have an adequate remedy at law. The larger infringers have taken advantage of the court system to squeeze out the inventor in America. The cases drag on for years before judges that are ill equipped to handle the subject matter. During this period, the infringer continues to mount profits via sales to fund the litigation. The inventor in the meantime is being drained by the massive legal fees being billed throughout the litigation. The legal proceedings serve as a major distraction along with the dwindling financial condition rendering a severe slow down on the inventive productivity that this country has relied upon since its existence. Lending institutions do not take risks on patent litigation causing the inventor company to seriously dilute ownership of the original investors in the invention company, if they are so able. The lawyers do not handle patent disputes on contingency fee contracts which creates an uneven playing field for the poorer inventors. In many cases the inventors simply run out of funds and they are forced to settle strong positions just to keep their doors open. This does not encourage the role of the inventor in this country. In fact it creates an atmosphere of discouragement because the cost of monetizing an invention is becoming a deterrent. The court system does not provide prejudgment injunctive relief and this is why your office should back the actions of the ITC. The ITC can prevent the economic squeeze that the infringers are executing on the lesser financially solvent inventors. The exponential growth of the worldwide, global economy makes the functions of the ITC more and more important every year. It is imperative that the Office of the President ratify the actions of the ITC or the institution will be rendered useless in the time it is now most needed. The actions of the ITC should be applauded in this country, not criticized and degraded. The ITC is critical for the progressive future of American business.
Link for the above opinion.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21788933
InterDigital Addresses U.S. Senate Regarding Patent Reform
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1012308&highlig....
Some additional information regarding InterDigital struggles to enforce its patents
InterDigital Files Complaint Against Nokia with International Trade Commission
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1037869&highlig....
InterDigital Files Complaint Against Samsung Electronics with International Trade Commission
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=977361&highligh....
Best Regards,
I stand corrected..Samsung is about 3G. I rechecked the IDCC news release.
IMO...Samsung is about 2G and Nokia is about 3G
Thanks DR. Now I think I have a better understanding of a probable reason for the restructuring.
Below is an excerpt (my bold) from the news release regarding the restructuring at InterDigital.
"Under the reorganization, effective July 2, 2007, InterDigital, Inc., a newly-formed entity, becomes the publicly-traded parent company for all of the InterDigital companies, including InterDigital Communications Corporation, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and its additional subsidiaries."
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116582&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1022143&highlig....
Can anyone name the additional subsidiaries that exist today other than the two mentioned in the news release? Is Tantivity one of those subsidiaries?
What assets does InterDigital Communications Corporation hold vs. InterDigital Technology Corporation? Is InterDigital Communication Corporation the Sales/Marketing and the Research and Development subsidiary while Interdigital Technology Corportation the holder/owner of all intellectual property?
What impact, if any, did this restructing may have played into the downturn of the stock price? Certainly the down stock market had its impact but looking for other possible causes. I do not believe the symbol change is the answer as the sellers did not seem to have problem finding and adjusting to it (LOL).
At the moment, I can not visualize any negative impact that can be attributed to the restructuring. There has been no other publicly reported change or news release. Has institutional ownership dropped during this period?
Maybe the earnings conference call on Wednesday will shed some light upon the reason for the downturn.