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.
"there will be a further hearing in 2008 to determine the form of order to be made as well as any orders relating to attorneys’ fees there will be a further hearing in 2008 to determine the form of order to be made as well as any orders relating to attorneys’ fees"
I wonder what happens now to the "further" hearing" in 2008. Is this going to be another opportunity for Nok to delay?
So sudden a death from stroke in a relatively young man was probably on the basis of cerebral hemmorrhage and possibly due to a ruptured aneurysm.
For me, shorting stocks, when I am in the occasional mode of making short term trades, has an advantage over buying. When I buy a stock, intending to hold for only a short while, and it goes against me, I have an urge to hold it longer term since I liked it in the first place and I don't mind having it in my portfolio. On the other hand, when I short a stock and it goes the wrong way, the tendency for me is to cover and get out of the trade ASAP. Incidentally, while I have never shorted IDCC, I have lots of shares through the years that I bot for a short term trade figuring that the price had to shoot up immediately and when I was proven wrong, I wound up holding and adding to my already abundant pile of shares over the years.
Probabilities (IMHO) Note: some of these are good and some bad FWIW I hope I'm wrong on the bad ones
-Sam will appeal SDNY decision
-Sam 3 will be turned down by ICC
-Nok bid for arbitration will be turned down by ICC
-Judge Pumfrey will declare at least one IDCC patent essential and one or more unessential
-FTC decision on an injunction against Sam and Nok is too hard to call at this time. Politics may play a role in this.(inflation, coming elections etc.)
-we will be disappointed when we learn (belatedly) of the details of the Apple license (Things that are not disclosed usually aren't as favorable as hoped, in my experience)
-the Lanham case in Delaware will disappear
-SAM and NOK will eventually pay but only after every possible and even impossible legal strategy is implemented
Just a few of the crucial parameters to be included in a new 3G license:
1. NO arbitration clause
2. NO MFL clause
3. An agreement in black and white that the patents licensed are valid and at least some of them are essential and also that the principle of FRAND has been satisfied
4. a review by several law firms to assure(and possibly even insure) that the agreement is ironclad
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
The future of IDCC does not depend on the exact amount of money that SAM pays. It depends on getting a 3G license. A compromise such as payment of the principal amount owed but not the interest would be a negative event IMO. Even a settlement for the full amout owed including interest would, at this point, be a slight disappointment. I'd be glad to get the money they owe us but not satisfied until we get a tier 1 3G license signed.
Bellecoola: A high cash position has some definite advantages and could improve the share price. However, it might also attract some takeover artists and, for that reason, it will be looked askance at.
In the event that these legal cases go on for several years, wouldn't it be smart for IDCC to halt their buyback and cut their expenses to the bone to preserve needed capital for the legal war chest we will need to continue this fight for as long as it takes? The less cash we have, the more leverage the infringers have. Among their reasons for not paying us is not only for them to save cash but also to deny us cash. Realistically IDCC may need to look beyond 2008 or even 2009 to achieve our goals of licensing over two thirds of the rapidly growing number of handsets sold. It would be a mistake to base the future of this company on whether we get paid by SAM or NOK in the next few months.
L2V:I appreciate your post and I agree with the points you made about the differences between 2G and 3G. I'd like to add an additional point. With respect to 2G, IDCC showed a consistant policy of accepting settlements from infringers which were lower than everyone had reason to expect, especially after legal proceedings which seemed to be going in our favor. The Nok settlement in 2006 is just one example. The Ericy and Lucent settlements are others. In none of these settlements were payments for 2G received or 3G considered. I was personally disappointed at the terms of these settlements but management kept declaring victory and rewarding themselves. W.S. has been less impressed than IDCC management as PPS has indicated.With 3G, management has seemed to finally take the tack that we will not settle until we are paid the reasonable rate we deserve and we will not declare a victory until there is in fact a true victory.
"The 3G IPR game is being played under totally different rules at IDCC, i.e., it has been played to win!"
I earnestly hope you are right because the way the 2G game was played, management won and shareholders lost. MO
One of the problems WM may have been having is that he has not had the final authority to clear a deal. The final deal has to be cleared with HC whose main activities in IDCC lately seem to be continuously converting his cheap options into shares and selling, thereby enriching himself while the shareholders suffer. A strong COB-CEO could help in deal making and improve the share price.
We need a radical change at the top. Zander has the expertise, status, and experience to do both the COB and the CEO job. If I were on the board, I'd be interviewing him. We could use a man with his creative talents and energy. MO
Zander did a good job in a tough situation at MOT. He was creative in introducing the razr, which shook up NOK for a while. I wouldn't mind seeing him as COB at IDCC. At least he would be the full time leader and helper to WM we have been sorely missing. Maybe he could even get MOT to sign a license or is that too much to hope for?
I am anticipating that the Q4 estimates will be trumped by the results of the sdny case and other timely good news before the actual Q4 results are released in February 2008.
Jim, thanks for sending me the transcript of the SNDY hearing. Reading that gave me the courage to buy more at the havoc related prices induced by that phoney PR out of Bangladore.
Zip
Seriously, I suggest that in a message board as controversial and well attended as Idcc, we divide it into two boards, a positive and a negative board. The positive board would be for opinions and/or information tilting towards the positive and the other board towards the negative. That way readers could read what they want and not feel upset or insulted and only the most inappropriate of comments would need to be censored. If someone like myself wanted to see both sides, he could read both boards.
gatticaa, SAM and NOK don't care about our national security but the justice department does and they got invoved in the RIMM vs patent holholders in the blackberry court case on the side of RIMM. Fortunately RIMM still had to pay over 600 million to the patent holders to settle the case.
It is quite possible, even probable, that in appealing an IDCC win at the ITC, NOK and Sam will plead that an injunction on both at once will create a crisis affecting national security. I hope that consideration of this will not prejudice the ITC(which is after all a political body) against IDCC.
Loop, I hope you are right. However, I have believed for some time that it would take a court decision backed up on appeal to make either Sam or Nok pay. Still, an injunction on their importation of infringing products might just be the catalyst to blissfully prove me wrong and turn things around. After they pay us what they owe us, I hope they sell a gazillion handsets with royalty coming to us on each unit.
"I suppose the brief stint with Gercenstein was part of the grooming process. LOL!"
It wasn't part of the grooming process. It was part of the emasculation process. Unfortunately it didn't work with him so he had to go.
my3sons,I am heartened that since Sam dropped all their claims except FRAND in the Delaware suit it appears that IDCC would have a strong case in the U.K. if the same patents are being considered.
Let's not expect too much of judge Pumphrey. Nok specifically chose this venue because of the reputation of this court in deciding against patent holders.
Data, I think the following statement is the most important in Janet's presentation: "We recently signed Apple to a license agreement, which enables us to enjoy some of the buzz that that product has been getting." Apple is known for being a very savvy operator. If they thought enough of our patents to license them, then perhaps Nok and Sam can rethink their "its cheaper to infringe and litigate and delay than it is to settle" policy
revlis, Another explanation
If Sam is considering paying royalties to Idcc for their patents, They might think it made sense to cease their claims of invalidity and non infringement before paying. Then, they could just negotiate a mutually acceptable rate.
If I were the judge hearing Sam's claim that Idcc was refusing to license under FRAND, I would ask what if any counteroffer Sam made. I believe that a reasonable offer would have been accepted by Idcc.
"Samsung has filed an Amended Complaint in their Delaware counter suit against IDCC. In the amended complaint they dropped their claims regarding declarations of non infringement and/or invalidity against the nine patents that had been listed as the “Patents in Suit”. They also deleted any references to these nine patents, and eliminated their requested relief that they were not infringing and that the patents be declared invalid. They still have a general claim that because of IDCCs failure to grant a license under FRAND, any patents declared by IDCC as essential are unenforceable."
IMO this is really good news. Having your patents declared invalid is a nightmare and one that deters companies from going to court. Sam's giving up on this approach is an indirect admission that our patents are indeed valid. Perhaps Nok can get this message too.
"the fixed royalty amount could and SHOULD change after the first $20m is earned."
If this turns out to be true, it changes everything.
Data,
No confirmation. Just my own assessment based on the confusing PR coming out of KoP.I wish that IDCC would confirm or deny what the analysts have been saying. In lieu of that, an announcemant that another licensee has been signed for an upfront 20 million would at least clear the air partially.
AAPL may yet underperform to expectations as a handset provider. It is way too early to tell. They agreed to give IDCC 56 million with the thought that if they were to succeed in the dicey scenario of ratcheting up their business to compete with the likes of NOK in the future, IDCC would not bother them anymore but if they fell on their face(which IMO is a real possibility) IDCC still would have their 56 million. Neither party could discuss this rational in public but from that perspective it seems like a good deal for both parties. However, I do think the PR from IDCC has been deliberately misleading to the public while H.C. has been selling large amounts of shares. This has been classless or worse.
I feel that the shareholders would have been better served by a $2.00 per share dividend than by a buy back of $35 million . About 20% of the stock is presently out short. A $2.00 dividend would have caused even more short covering, favoring the sharehoders with not only an increase in share price but cash as well. If we see insider dumping during the buyback, I will be even more convinced that a dividend would have been preferable.
Danny You stated: "Also, I don't have the first clue about how to be a successful trader and I suspect the same is true of the insiders."
Insiders are not your usual traders. They are using information not available to the public to gain an unfair advantage over the public.
Mschere: "Nokia would like to represent that they are paying InterDigital only 1% for a far more extensive GSM/ WCDMA Patent Portfolio than Q."
I agree with you on this one, having often thought, myself, along those lines.
Frank Marsala, whom I trust as a conservative analyst, has figured that, even without chip revenues or revenues from new licensees, we should have earnings of $.97/sh for the year 2007. In this worst case scenario, Idcc would be a take over prospect at near where the price is now. So with this limited downside and significant upside, it would be good to hold on to our stock, sleep well, not visit the Ihub board too often and not get too upset by daily fluctuations in price or even legitimate(IMO)frustrations with management. I truly believe we are heading for port. This is no time to jump ship.
Revlis:
FACT: The share price was going up significantly while the company was buying back its stock.
FACT: The share price fell precipitously after massive discretionary selling by a large group of insiders, who sold
at approximately the same time during the buy back.
NUFF SAID!
On my screen, there are practically no shares being offered for less than $26
We gave Nok a good deal. We gave LG a good deal. Why not give Samsung a good deal and move ahead. Unlike Qcom, we can give these good deals and still be very successful and have our stock price constantly move up. We don't have to manage anything like the market cap that Qcom has to manage.
My greatest hope is that that at the August second CC Idcc will announce a settlement with Samsung. If that is not possible, I would hope that there will be an announcement of a suit against one or more infringers. Things that I do not want to hear are reassurances that licencees will be signed up SOON or that we intend to defend our IPR IN THE FUTURE. Patience is wearing thin. It is now put up or shut up time.
Cmini123 You are a bear with blinders on. For you, the glass seems always half full.
"almost 50% of SRDX’s revenue comes from Cypher and related services" Right now that's true, but OVER HALF of revenue comes from other than Cypher and this is growing annually.
"Genetech signing on is a dream" Even if that is true, use of the InnoRx platform for continuous drug release in chronic iritis and glaucoma is still a real possibility. The latter is a very large market.
"Novacell is a zero" We have already made the move from animal to human trials with initial success Even if the supply problem for islet cells takes a while to solve, this project can be a success using just donor islet cells from cadavers and eventually could be a real blockbuster if islet cells can be produced from stem cells.
There's an old adage that goes "buy on the rumor, sell on the news". This can work both ways as in "sell on the rumor, buy on the news". There's a rumor out that Q2 reports for Idcc to be released on August 2nd are going to be very good. I think we've seen some selling on the rumor. Now we can look for some buying on the news.
Jim ,You stated:
"I'm saying what looked good to us IDCC investors wound up to be a great deal for LG investors. See Data's post on that."
O.K. So lets give SAM a similiar great deal and move on. We can then sue NOK, MOT, and ERICY later and NO MORE INSIDER SELLING until the final resolution of those matters, no matter how long it takes.