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.
Loop, I disagree when you say" I will vote my shares at the last possible moment in order to allow time for any watershed announcements which would justify the compensation he has received over the last 6 years."
I feel that regardless of what happens in the next few weeks, it is time for Mr. Roath to go and I so voted. I also believe that W.S. would applaud this and the stock would be lifted a bit.
The good earnings news for Q1 04 should have canceled out the poor report for Q4 03 This leaves the delay in the anticipated arbitration decision date from July 04 to shortly after Jan 05 as the only thing that has changed since the CC in March The chances for a favorable decision are the same now as they were in March. The price of the stock has changed from 27 to 16 now. This seems unwarranted even taking into account a dip in the Nasdaq since then.
I gave in. I just bot some more.
When guidance came up a week ago. the price popped up over a point. Now that we beat guidance and a good year ahead was predicted, the price is down. I know the market is dragging us down but this is unreal. I've got so much of this stock that it would be imprudent to buy more but I'm sorely tempted.
When Merrit predicted new licensees in Q4 03, I beleve he had Lu in mimd. Obviously this is not the case now. I wonder who management has in mind this time. "We also expect to
conclude additional patent license agreements during 2004"
When H.G. said at the last CC that he was not upset at the delay in arbitration but pleased that the arbitrators were taking their time, perhaps he was alluding to this.
Sjratty: I have a different view on this issue."That said, I reiterate that I think it is more likely than not that the panel will ask for the documents (to be overinclusive in their review of the case, rather than underinclusive) and I would not take that request as a bad sign. Rather, the request I would take as a neutral sign (while no request would be a positive sign)." IMO there are two things the arbitrators have to decide:
1. Is Ericy a trigger?
2. if so, how much does Idcc get paid?
The contract with Nok deals with 1. The Ericy documents deal with 2. I hope the arbitrators will want to see the documents.
We will probably get another kick up of a point or so on May 10 when we come in at the high end of recent guidance.(depending somewhat on future guidance at the CC on May 10) It will take another 2 months before anticipation of a forthcoming arbitration decision really begins heating this stock up. After the decision, there will be an explosion either to the upside or the downside. Right now I'm favoring the upside although I can't understand the delay of a decision in the absence of pacer confirmation of the arbitrators reqesting the Ericy documents from judge Lynn.
The main reason that Idcc is dropping is not because of changing fundamentals but because W.S. does not believe or trust management. We need some staight talk and evidence that the interests of management are "aligned" with those of shareholders.
Apparently the arbitration board has not yet asked Judge Lynn for the documents from the Idcc Ericy case.(nothing on pacer) This means that either the board is not interested in the documents or that Idcc has volunteered to hand over the documents without Nok having to go through the court to get them.(I would assume with the agreement of Ericy) If the documents are not being looked at, I can't imagine why the arbitration is taking so long. Perhaps this delay could be with the consent of both Idcc and Nok so they have time to look at the 2G and 3G landscape and work out a settlement.
We can relax and let events take their course. We are making our way thru the jungle and are about to emerge at the water's edge, from which point we can grab our boats and have some smooth sailing. We WILL NOT walk away from the Nok arbitration empty handed. What's important is that we made it to this point thru some pretty impenetrable terrain and some vicious predators. 3G is now arriving and it looks favorable for us to get our share. The exact amount that we get from the arbitration and some of managements peccadillos are less important than the 3G royalties that are really close now. Let's not abandon ship while we are coming into port.
"even if there is any wiggle-room for NOK to claim that a court-litigated decision was presupposed, not an out-of-court settlement...well, that makes for a lawyers' feast and very poor arb result for IDCC" If this were the case, why would Idcc have settled the case with Ericy for the little they got rather than rolling the dice in court? Also, if Idcc won in court, would they have had to wait until appeals were exhausted before the Nok deal was triggered? Would not F and J have read the contract and given their opinion not to settle? If a court decision rather than a settlement were necessary, would this now also be the case with the Lucent suit over 3G? Perhaps some of these questions could be answered at the ASM
I am less worried about the inappropriate awards of options and restricted stock to H.C. than I am about the future of this company. I think it is time for H.C. to go and to allow a person who is experienced and respected in the Telecom community to take the helm. I think H.C. has taken us to the point where we can attract a new leader to take us to the next level and I thank him for that.
Captains log: Ericy settled with Idcc a year ago without a licence for 3G. I have felt that the reason that Idcc did not initiate a suit with Ericy for 3G before now is that Idcc has an informal agreement with Ericy that Ericy will licence for 3G after the Nok arbitration concludes that Ericy is a trigger for 2G( thus demonstrating that Ericy would also be a trigger for 3G for Nok,who is their largest competitor,)In fact, after the Idcc-Ericy settlement, H.G. made a comment to the effect that Ericy was an ethical company. If Ericy still refuses to pay for 3G after a positive arbitration result, then H.G. will have made a grievous error.
eneerg; AWESOME ARTICLE I hope that the JPO and Idcc take note
"It is no exaggeration to say that for Fujitsu and other firms that own intellectual property, technology represents corporate value. Claiming the ownership of the property is not only a precondition for our existence but also justifiable behavior in accordance with the rules of international competition.
We have learned from our legal dispute with IBM that the most important thing is to stand firm in asserting our rights"
Old Dog: I believe that the NOK contract named ERICY OR ITS SUCCESSORS as a trigger and that the arguments that NOK has introduced into arbitration to nullify their contract with IDCC are without merit. I therefore have concluded that the likelihood is that IDCC will win in this arbitration. This makes IDCC a very good arbitrage for the next year and, taking into account the arrival of 3G, a very good investment for the future, IMHO.
Lets assume the worst case scenario: Idcc loses the arbitration and Nokia pays nothing nor does Samsung. Idcc gross revenues drop precipitously after 2006. The Lucent suit is not resolved until well after 2006, esp. with appeals. Idcc is forced to initiate new suits while cash in the bank is being depleted. Management commences selling its shares . We drop into the low single digits.
Lets assume a best case scenario: Idcc wins the arbitration and Nokia is forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars. Samsung is also made to pay significant sums. Other OEM's become licencees . Ericy pays for 3G as do Nok and others. The stock price of Idcc goes to 50 in a few months and 100 in a year.
"Japanese firms have come to possess patents of global importance". Maybe now the Japanese patent office will finally get around to looking at and approving Idcc patents that have been pending for over 4 years.
S/E wants to wait to see if their signing for 2G is a trigger to induce Nok to pay for 2G. IMO, if it turns out that they are a trigger, S/E will sign for 3G. If they still don't sign, I would anticipate that Idcc would initiate a suit. This time it won't take 10 years because Idcc will be pushing it along. Also if Lu signs and that triggers Nok, I believe that S/E will sign.
Jai I agree. By December, we should breathing heavy with expectations on the NOK arbitration results.
Just as Cinderella had to get home before 12 or turn into a pumkin, there are a lot of shorts out there who have to get going before the 12th month(December 2004) or turn into something they wished they weren't. I wouldn't be surprised to see buying(to cover) over the next several months even without company stock repurchase programs.
Whizzeresq You stated, "We do have a wild card and that is Nokia's Motion to Vacate which is currently before the judge. If the judge were to issue a ruling that Nokia lost its Motion, IDCC should have a nice move."
It was my understanding that the motion was to REVERSE the previous vacating of the partial summary judgements. I also understood that this would be difficult for the judge to do since Idcc would have no chance to appeal the PSJ's unless the settlement with Ericy was set aside and the case reopened.
" KoP has its own way of doing things."
Things HAVE changed. Idcc is now standing firm and not making inferior settlements with infringers, which lead, inevitably, to future litigation. It is time now to test our WCDMA patents in court. If we have what we think we have, then licencees should sign on prior to their owing so much that they can't or won't come up with such large sums. I admit its a risky strategy, seeing what happened in the MOT case, but its a necessary one and this is the best time to bite the bullet.
Let's assume a worst case scenario: The Nok arb panel decides that Ericy is not a trigger so no rate is established. The Samsung arb is not about a trigger but about MFL. If there is no rate with Nok, the MFL agument won't kick in until a rate is established and it's lower than what Sam agreed to pay. Therefore, the Samsung arb would still probably come out in favor of Idcc being paid by Samsung according to their previous agreement with Idcc. IMO
I would hope that the royalty rate for Lucent after Idcc gets a court decision in their favor would be closer to a market rate than the rate that they give companies that sign up without the need for litigation.
I do not believe that judge Lynn has the authority to do that
Question: If, in the interest of expediting things, Idcc now chose to release the sealed documents on their own to the arbitration panel without them having to go through Judge Lynn (and assuming Ericy agreed to this) could they legally do that? If they could, this might explain why pacer hs not yet shown any requests to the court by the arbitrators for release of the sealed documents.
Jai I disagree. keeping a strong financial position is critical to providing a credible threat to infringers that legal measures can and will be taken. Lack of this is what made Tantivy sell out to Idcc IMO
Loop, your lucky. If you hadn't had a ruptured appendix, you probably would have sat around watching your computer screen and got something worse like a perforated ulcer.
Ed If that is true, why has Qcom been trying so hard to see CDMA triumph over WCDMA?
IMO Ericy will sign for 3G after they are recognised by the Nok-Idcc arbitration panel as a trigger for 2G. The one thing they don't want to do is to pay for 3G and have their arch competitor, Nok, not pay. Its better not to sue them now but to wait for the decision of the arbitration panel. In the unlikely event that things go wrong in arbitration, we would have to sue them then.
In retrospect, it is now obvious that Idcc made a big mistake in their 1999 agreement with Nok in not setting a rate but in relying on a "trigger" to set the rate.. It opened up the potential for Nok to dispute the "trigger" whoever the OEM might be and under whatever circumstances. We also agreed to MFL(much future litigation) deals. We are learning from the past and will sign no more deals like those. We are stronger financially. We can offer licenses with favorable rates to those who want to sign and lawsuits to those who still insist on infringing.
TC IMO it was an institution that unloaded all that stock in a few minutes. This is one of the downsides of institutional ownership. I have seen an instance when an institution dropped a million plus shares onto a thin market with no apparent concern for price and when there was no apparent emergency. As individuals, you and I can take risks for superior rewards that an institution may feel unable to take. I doubt that we will ever know the exact reason for their action, but it might be that they just felt they had too many shares and they wanted to sell some of them.
IMO Idcc has embarked on a new strategy. Give a favorable rate but demand licensing for the total package. This was acceptable to Sierra and I feel it will work with others.
Perception counts
The patent license agreement covers the sale of wireless terminal units and wireless modules built to Second Generation (2G and 2.5G) IS-136/GSM/GPRS/EDGE/IS-95B and all Third Generation (3G) WCDMA/cdma2000® standardsThere are lots of Sierra Wirelesses out there. We'll take all we can get.
It's deductive reasoning rather a confirmed fact. The evidentiary hearing won't be for another 10 months. A study of the contract would take far less time. If Ericy were not the trigger, there would be no reason to see the sealed docs. What else besides obtaining and studying the sealed docs would take so long?
Arb board is looking at sealed docs to see how Ericy set the rate in its settlement with Idcc. This tells me that the board accepts the fact that Ericy triggers the rate with Nok and they are trying to determine what a fair rate is.
In my experience, good luck falls on companies set up receive it. After all the DD and study of the fundamentals, something unexpected comes out of the blue and determines the future success of a growth company. This something must fall on fertile ground or it will not take hold. I believe Idcc is fertile ground and I am waiting for the event which will define its future.
Idcc chose Lu to sue because the infringement issues were clear. Idcc looked very closely at Tantivy IPR before buying the company. Idcc knew they were going to have to sue to get paid. I assume that F and J had input before the purchase. I would not be surprised to see Lu settle rather than go thru the expense and bad PR associated with an adverse result at trial. On the other hand, winning at trial would do a lot for Idcc's image.