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.
Mister: I disagree with your broker who says Idcc is dead money. It is true that a real gap up in the Idcc SP will not come from a win at arbitration or by sales of patents or by signing tiny companies. It will come from success in court. There, we have two cases that will be announced this year, one at the CAFC, which should come to a verdict in the near term despite the long delay. The other case at the ITC will be heard in October or November this year although the verdict will be announced in early 2013. I figure we have at least a 50:50 chance of prevailing in each of these. In either case, the SP of Idcc will get a nice bump up with a good chance of signing an OEM as a result of the win. With a good cash position, and LTE and bandwidth compression patents, and with the SP being as low as it is, I'm going to grit my teeth and hold the stock with the expectation that, by this time next year, the price will be significantly higher.
Old Dog: I have to give the nod to Dave. Even though I think he is overly, sometimes unrealistically optomistic, he knows way more about Idcc than the quoted stockbroker. Having had bad experiences with stockbrokers, I have learned not to pay too much attention to them.
<<Don't be shy! Ask some real tough, pointed questions. Strive for a 'real' answer, not just some BS response from the BOD and/or management.
Inquiring minds want to know (and owners have a right to know answers to questions like:
1. Was there really no bids at the SA or was it because IDCC/Evercore/Barclays set the 'starting bid price' so high that no one wanted to open the bidding;
2. How could our legal representatives (In-house and outside attorneys) do such a poor job of signing licensees at such bad terms;
3. Where are all of the 'potential licensees' that IDCC was in discussions with during the SA and why, if they were in discussions, haven't they been licensed;
4. When will InterDigital begin to fully disclose its activities so that the shareholders and Wall Street have something positive to put their hands around rather than just following the 10% guidelines for disclosure.
5. Why hasn't InterDigital pursued Motorola and Ericsson for licnesing 3-G, 4-G, and LTE. Are there some 'hands off' provisions in their settlement or are they NOT using IDCC IPR.
6. Will BOARD/Management commit to deferring RSU's, Bonuses, and salary increases UNTIL they achieve their $800million target or at least until NOKIA, LG, ZTE, Huawei, Google, and Apple licenses are signed/updated?>>
For those who can't attend, I will give some of the BS answers you can expect to your questions.......
1.The bidding was handled by Evercore/Barkley's and we can't second guess them.
2.The license terms were appropriate at the time.
3.The discussions are ongoing.
4.Smaller than 10% is not important enough to discuss.
5.The settlements were confidential.
6.NO.
Thank you Old Dog:
<< Arbitration is covered by the Disputes Clause of the LG license. It is among the clauses which still may apply after the license term expires.>>
I wonder if we can find out at the ASM whether any of our other licenses have this clause. If so, do they intend in the future to insert this clause, which can be used by an infringer as a shield against a lawsuit while they stall us forever.
The LG tactic will backfire with their absurd stipulation of arbitration, which is mandated by a non-existant contract... the ITC judges will take note of the stalling techniques of the infringers and deliver a more timely verdict in Idcc's favor...not the equally absurd 2 year delay of the CAFC verdict.
I've been long in this story for 12 years. Now we're approaching a denouement. You don't change horses in mid stream. I'm against management change, at least until the results of the ITC case in the fall are known. This time I'm counting on well written, well selected and well prosecuted patents. This is management's responsibility. If we lose, management should then go.
I've been long for 12 years. You don't change horses in mid stream. I vote against management change, at least until the results of the ITC case in October or November become known.
GE JIM: <<I don't have faith in patent troll companies>>.....
Patent troll is just a derogatory term used by infringers to insult patent inventors when they attempt to collect for their IPR. We have to get thicker skin. We have to go after LTE infringers NOW. Delay is a game that Nok and other infringers have played for years and will continue to play as long as possible. Delay is THEIR game. Why are we content to play THEIR game? Idcc does not need dividends or buy backs(see how much they've NOT helped the stock price) We need a more aggressive policy to pursue these infringers legally. Idcc will always be known a patent troll. I'd rather it be known as a successful patent troll.
AMCJAX: Don't worry. However the case is decided by the ITC, it will be appealed and the CAFC will have to decide it anyway. I just hope it doesn't take another 2 years. Perhaps, with Idcc putting forth new patents, it is just as well.
At this point, I'm inclined to believe what I thought previously was unlikely...namely that the judges at the CAFC case are inclined to wait until the ITC case in 4 or 5 months and then let the new patents decide the case, not only against NOK, but also against the rest.
I hope, at the ASM, management's failure to license Appl, which is infringing on LTE, comes up for discussion. Why should any other EOM pay for LTE while Appl is not?
Anybody have an idea why PYMX was up over 18% today in a down market on pretty high volume?
OK so the goals are BS...Still, don't you believe the company is worth 2 billion to someone out there?
FISH: H.C., the former COB was a puppet master, to whom the interests of the shareholders were the last things on his mind. He is gone. Things have changed. Clontz is COB and IMO FB will either buy us or license from us at reasonable rates, not the abusive rates that Appl got.
RIMM OS has been shown not to be competitive with Appl, Goog, and recently Msft O.S.. FB will want to start from scratch and develop their own competitive O.S. H.P. thought they could be competitive by using the Palm O.S. and look what happened to that venture. Besides, Idcc will be a fraction of the price that Rimm will be demanding.
Looks like FB will be looking for a company with a large patent portfolio. This casts Rim or Idcc as possibilities. Idcc is cheaper. A mere 2 billion would do it. I would even accept stock in FB instead of cash. Deducting the cash in the till that Idcc already has, the expense to FB would be a little over 1 billion. The biggest impediment to the deal would be Idcc management not wanting to lose their cushy jobs.
Mickey...I am afraid the only way NOK will settle now is if they lose in court, especially since cash has become so tight for them currently. I think they will survive,however, If Idcc decides to take a chance with NOK and let them pay what they owe gradually over time with appropriate interest, they might be able to reach a settlement.
You are assuming Idcc is going to lose at the CAFC and again at the ITC. These are two big assumptions and imo are baked into the stock price already. If either of these two assumptions are wrong, which I think is probably the case, the shorts could be in for a big surprise.
If this case is a draw at the CAFC, I think Idcc would be content to wait it out and place their chips on the coming October case at the ITC with the "new and improved" patents. I think this strategy makes sense. A win(or a loss) at the cafc would be made superfluous by the new case anyway.
M Partners seems to agree...<<the company needs to demonstrate fairly soon that it can compel major current licensees to upgrade to 4G/LTE.>> How about some action towards that goal.(especially with Apple which has a hurtfully low rate, which while Apple has been flying high, has consigned Idcc to the depths
When Qcom was trying to license Nok, Nok was even more accusatory against Qcom than Huawei has been against Idcc. Nok even sent a low ball check for what they thought the IPR was worth, which Qcom tore up. Then Nok abruptly settled with Qcom for a higher rate.
I was thinking the same thing. We need a three part simple reply:
1. We are asking for the standard frandly rates that Nok, Msft etc. are getting
2.We erred on the Apple deal and it will not be repeated
3.The Apple deal did not include LTE which we intend to get paid for
This is just a "hail mary" pass by Huawei before losing the game at the U.S. ITC in October. So far, they've paid absolutely nothing and refused to negotiate a fair deal.
<<Huawei filed a complaint with the European Commission on Wednesday, after failing to reach a deal with the wireless technology patent holder>>...They are probably looking for the same rates for 7 years that Apple got.
Loop: I appreciate your insightful post. The Apple agreement is at the center of Idcc's problems. Undertaking legal action at this time in order to have reasonable royalties paid by Apple fot LTE would do more than bring cash into the Idcc coffers. It would signal to other current and future licensees that the game will be played fairly from now on. I realize that Idcc is reluctant to sue present licensees but this is a special case and needs to be handled as such.
<< Next need to get the RS out of the way.>>
I strongly disagree. It is incumbent on Nic to state very soon that due to the unanticipated stoppage of 56 studies, R/S will not be enacted on at least for this year while we focus our attention on 63.
I put the blame for the Apple deal on H.C. He was interested in qualifying for his bonus and the Apple deal was mainly necessary for that reason. Also it was thought the prestige of having Apple as a licensee would bode well for their future licensing efforts. In those days, you either followed H.C. orders or you were out. Bill was trying to preserve his job. Keeping the shareholders in the dark was then a time honored tradition and, to some extent, still is. The situation has changed and Clontz is not H.C. and Merrit no longer has to act like a trained seal. IDCC does need to be more transparent.
During the SA, Samsung apparently was said to have backed off because the asking price was too high. This indicates to me that a minimum bid was required in order for the conversation to begin. Then, recently, without explaining anything further, management said there were no bids for the company. This was a misleading remark and imo a grave disservice to the company and its shareholders. I find it impossible to believe that absolutely nobody put in even a low ball bid. We've got enough antagonists without our own management obscuring the facts for us.
Danny ...For over a decade, Idcc has not been a boat for financial advisers to put widows and orphans into, but swashbuckling adventurers. Right now, we're becalmed at sea but before long the wind will come up and speed our ship to its chosen destination.
At this point the market is assuming all our patents are worthless. It isn't a question of putting our patents at risk any more. Either the market is right or wrong. Its time to have a series of showdowns. We have plenty of cash in the bank. Let's use it for something other than management salaries and perks.
The VHC case shows that Apple WILL settle when the chips are down. IMO this case enhances the value of IDCC. At these prices it can use an enhancement. Now what’s delaying an Idcc suit against Apple for infringement on tablets and LTE?
If Idcc now files suit against Apple for infringement related to its I pad offerings it would send a message to the rest of the infringers as to an equitable and fair rate that it is now asking. It would reduce the negative effect that the current license with Apple caused among Apple competitors. It would indicate that the current Apple license was a one time mistake that will not be repeated
In the end the future of this company does not depend on quarterly earnings but on the signing of major eom's to favorable licenses. Whether this quarter or next quarter's earnings are good or bad, the success or failure of IDCC will depend upon these signings. Realistically this will have to be done through court actions. If they fail the company will suffer and eventually be bot out for a low price. If they succeed the company will be very profitable. IDCC is well funded. They are able to pursue the court cases that are so necessary for their survival. Now or in 2 years we'll be in court with Apple. IDCC is not a stock for those who depend on quarterly earnings It is for those who are waiting for victories and much superior cash returns. I am holding until these current court cases are decided even though I know the market which looks at it from a different perspective disagrees.
We've waited almost a year and a half and there is roughly a half a year left before a another set of lawsuits against infringers is heard at the ITC with IDCC presenting new and "improved patents" over the old ones so maybe no news is good news.
I agree with your two posts and that of D.R. I have come to believe that the best path for IDCC for the future is a sale of the whole company instead of piecemeal. I believe they were heading down the right road but for whatever the reason they did not arrive at the desired destination. A win at the CAFC would IMO facilitate the subsequent sale to a company that could use the patents to trade off with other companies or to protect their products from claims of infringement. Let's try it again, but this time we need to learn from our failure.
The longs were sure of themselves last summer and got killed by not selling. Nothing personal, but I am expecting the shorts to killed this time by not covering. Odds are the CAFC decision will come any day now. This has gone on far too long imo.
There is of course a reason for the delay and it is not because the judges had insufficient time to put their decision on paper. Perhaps it is because an adverse decision would be so significant for each of the parties, that they wanted to give them time and motivation to reach a settlement. Both parties are now hurting badly and perhaps the time is ripe for an equitable settlement. Having said this, IDCC can definitely not afford to forgive past infringements even if it means losing the case because it would send a message that infringement is a preferred policy to paying on time.
Why has the panel of judges at the CAFC taken so long to write their opinion? Perhaps they were irritated by the hubris of Idcc shareholders who announced they could tell the decision by the way the oral hearings went. They might have decided to let us all cool our heals. Well, over a year and 3 months have passed and we're still waiting and the confidence we exuded is long gone. Perhaps its time for this case to be decided. The wait has not been without its lessons. We learned to be less confident and less greedy.
In real estate, an asset goes on the market at an asking price. As the weeks and months go with no takers, the price is set lower until bidders are attracted and a kind of an auction takes place and the deal gets done. It is time for IDCC to get back into the market with a lower asking price, low enough to attract some bids. If the current management is unwilling to take this tack, they need to be replaced.
"Fixed fees agreements are only beneficial for the payer. Apple agreement a perfect example. The fact that these agreements were acceptable to IDCC says it all.".......
The main reason that management signed the APPL agreement is that it helped them secure a bonus. Other reasons were that they hoped it would give prestige and the alternative was a protracted and expensive legal fight. IMO H.C. was the chief architect of this misguided and shareholder unfriendly deal.