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.
TWFG
As institutions get a greater amount of IDCC stock, they will tend to hold it till after the Ericy case is resolved. This could cause the stock price to rise in the next few months and even precipitate a short squeeze. IMO
Ronny
Thank so for all the incredible work you have contributed in bringing to lite and detailing this problem. I do believe that your efforts have helped all of us, even management, in refining this operation. We have a goose which is about to lay a golden egg and even though we may never convert the goose to a swan, you have helped us in assuring there will be enough in the eventual omlet for all of us.
Ericy has painted themselves into a corner with this PR. I'm not sure why they would have done that since they are now in a position to lose credibility if they reverse course and decide to settle at ANY time.
Loop
I have read and reread your post 7999. I have been long IDCC since November 1999 and I bow to your more complete experience with the company.
Perhaps the most important part of your post is the idea is that we will collect for 3G even if we lose Ericy. If you assume that this idea is correct, the value of IDCC shares has to be in excess of its present market price EVEN FACTORING IN A LOSS TO ERICY. To put it another way, the market has already discounted a loss to Ericy. This defies reason since the odds are that IDCC will prevail in the Ericy case. Perhaps I am missing something. I have been in the market for a while but I can't remember a situation quite like this.
Zip
Danny
I think we may have already done some good. I have a hunch we have gotten their attention. Now,I agree with you. We have to cool down, swallow hard, and let them do their job. Like it or not, we are on the same team.
Danny
It is nice to see that J.P. answered your E mail promptly. I remember when you communicated with management a while ago regarding a number of suggestions that you brought from Jim's board, their eventual response was far from satisfactory. What has changed since then?
Loop, you are missing the point
Trust, in general, is the big issue here. The options are disturbing but what is MUCH MORE disturbing is that they have given the public the impression that they had signed NOK to a lease that was about to secure our future when in fact they knew that all we had was a crap shoot. In the mean time they have sold stock at huge profits. I believe that Harry is hedging in case of a loss in ways that are not available to us. He is playing a game of heads I win, tails I win. That is what bothers me.
Why the character of management is important:
If the result of Ericy turns out not to be as we all wish, management will have to make several decisions. Should they be patient and wait for 3G revenues to kick in? Should they be aggressive and bring 3G infringement actions? Should they merge with a manufacturer. What perks will they get if they do?
In each of these decisions you can be sure of one thing. They will look to what is in their best interests and ignore the interests of the shareholders. They have enough of a track record for that statement to be made.
Ronny, Harry may not want institutional investors.
If a really large percentage of the stock were held by institutions he might be hesitant to pull some of the stuff we've been seeing. However, looking at it from his point of view, he may feel that to invite some individual investors and not others to an informal meeting including institutions might run afoul of the FD rules. Our best hope is that we win over Ericy and from that event attract a large institutional following that may act as a stimulus to change management's ways.
Loop, excellent post. My take on the disappointing result of the Samsung arbitration was that the 39 million dollar payoff from Nokia was not really for engineering work, nor for royalties but mostly consideration for IDCC not filing an infringement suit at the time. If the arbitrator has seen it that way, he might not have used the MFL clause against IDCC. As a lawyer, do you know whether IDCC could have structured the deal so as to make it plain that this was really to forestall a lawsuit more than to make NOK a licensee. Or do you perhaps not agree with my thinking on this? At any rate it was tough for IDCC, having told the world that NOK was a licensee to then have to convince the arbitrator that NOK was not a licensee.
Zitboy; re restricted stock
After 24 months, the "legend" which is on the restricted stock can be removed by a call to your broker and you can sell it like any other stock. Prior to that, you have to submit an S3 form to the company counsel. I am presently making arrangements to sell resticted stock which I have held for a little over a year. Once you make these arrangements, you still have discretion as to whether you wish to sell.
Restricted stock usually means the stock can't be sold until it is registered(usually within 30 to 60 days) and some SEC forms have to be dealt with before the sale.
Harry buy=price rise; Harry sell=price drop. History has shown this formula to be accurate and I have little doubt that this "buy" will be further evidence. Say what you want about Harry, he is very lucky when he trades Idcc.
Mot covinced jurors Idcc were bad guys
Jurors tend to see things in black and white and they relate even complicated things to their own lives. Here Mot painted a picture of Idcc being some kind of a highway man holding up the honest Mot, who was just trying to go about his business and get his job done. Apparently the Idcc CEO, Bramson did not help the Idcc case in the way he presented to the jury.
Ericy will probably try the same tactics. The antidote is to paint the Ericy engineers who voted to licence with Idcc as the good guys and Ericy management as the highwaymen, which is apparently close to the truth. I just hope we can get the smoking guns into evidence.
Rich
I am certainly not one to flame you. I appreciate contrary views. However, your posts sometimes carry a tone that is less than totally impartial. For example you wrote:
"IDCC is an outgrowth of the old Linkabit company. Dr. Jacobs old company. Their patents are largely (although not completely) a subset of that old company. I am one that questions whether or not they have essential patents and if they do, whether or not they can do anything with them. I really don't know." Although this post is not really to bash IDDC, it does have a tone that is a little dismissive. Agreed?
Desert Dweller
"The ultimate rate for Samsung for 3g IMHO will be slightly higher than Nokia since Nokia does not have to pay for TDD but Samsung should." You seem convinced that even if we lose 2G in our dispute with Ericy, we will get paid for 3G. I would like to believe this. What convinces you?
WHEN IS A LICENCEE NOT A LICENCEE?
For me this has got to be the one most important question wih IDCC. I WOULD NOT HAVE BEGUN BUYING IDCC 3 YEARS AGO IF I HAD NOT BEEN LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT NOK WAS A LICENCEE. I could not understand over the past three years why management would sell when NOK was a licencee. Now I am wondering whether the rate of payment by NOK for IDCC IPR will be ZERO if we lose to ERICY. If someone has information to the contrary I would like to know it. Management has known the answer to this all important question all along and I think we have a right to know also. I will not sell because I think we will win the ERICY case but I will buy more if the answer is positive.
Loop, regarding potential requests for recusal, if you were an attorney for Ericy, would you not;
1. wait until final judgement on the Harris case before making the request and;
2. be more inclined to request recusal if an enhanced verdict came in.
BTW, thanks for your previous opnions
Loop, the verdict is more important than the judgement on the post trial motions or even the cash award. I would expect that the royalty agreements and additional licences would start kicking in soon after the verdict.
A fly on the wall in the judges chambers might have heard this.
Judge:"Are you two really at an impass because if so we'll just go ahead with the trial on Feb 10?"
IDCC and Ericy :"Give us a bit more time. We're almost in agreement and we need to dot a few i's and cross a few t's."
Judge:"Alright, I'll delay this case for the very last time. How much time do you think you need?"
IDCC and Ericy:"Give us a couple of months. That should wrap it up"
Judge:"I'll give you until the middle of May but don't anyone come back and ask for more. I want this case over by summer."
Delay of trial was due to approaching settlement or need for further review by the new judge. Either way, I don't see the reason for the precipitous drop in price the last few weeks. Also, except for the weak market. I don't see any other reason for the drop. With that in mind, I bot again today.
Osoesq, while you may be right, I'm not sure that current management is best for the challenges IDCC will face in the future. When you have acute appendicitis, a surgeon is consulted. When you have to deal with heart trouble, you call in a cardiologist. Neither is ashamed or should be if he is not tapped for both situations.
AMS,you stated"I hope and expect Nokia to establish a rate before an Ericy resolution or trial." If NOK established a low rate for 2G before the trial, would that not tend to influence the court to award a lower amount to IDCC from ERICY for 2G infringement?
AMS, I think H.C. may be the man for the times. His type of skills may be what IDCC needs to get us over this hump. Afterwards, I would hope that he would hand over the reins to a full time person with extensive experience in science and in managing a large corporation. I would say the same for H.G.
BOB, I think you miss the point. Its not about people posting "I don't like this company." Its about people posting in a trashy, disruptive way, usually with a volume of idiotic consecutive posts that spoil these boards for serious investors.
Bob
Loophole is a very brite attorney, whose posts have been amongst the most insightful and balanced posts on this board for several years. Perhaps his comment was intended to get attention in pointing out some flaws in the rules of engagement with the hope that improvements could be considered. I have the highest respect for him and would be proud to have him as my attorney. Incidentally, I recently had a personal attorney, who to my surprise, started a meeting with my antagonists with the comment "you guys are a bunch of bastards." It almost ended the meeting but it did get their attention and helped steer the meeting towards an acceptable compromise.
Loophole I agree. Jimlur's club board was not a chat room, even though IDCC management has referred to it as such when they did not like what they read on it. There a lot of "mentally challenged individuals" out there who amuse themselves on message boards. Actually its a fairly harmless entertainment for them and I have no objections to it. However, this board,in the past, has been something more. The question is whether this is going to be a chat room or a serious discussion group. If its going to be the former, I will stop visiting it as I have with the Yahoo and the original RB boards. IMO your contributions are among the most valuable on this board and I hope you keep posting.
Indefinite delay may allow Ericy to soft pedal 2G and promise royalties for 3G as the bulk of the settlement. Nok and Samsung would applaud this also.
Why not further delay? With the filings to be mastered by a new judge as complex as they are, why not additional delays into the future? After hearing both sides of the argument, it seems to me that the court needing more time was the likely reason rather than an imminent settlement. Eventually the case will come to trial (possibly in the fall as did the Harris case) and we will probably win as they did. In the mean time, I'll sit back and buy more on the way down.
JKJ, you have been unselfish.
You could have withheld news of your research until you bought more stock and then revealed it and sat back and watched the price go up(as the brokerage houses do). Instead you shared it with your colleagues. This is an example for management in how to behave.
Ronny, excellent post Please send. In fact, it is a very benign letter. I have a lot of objections to the way the option program has been handled but my most serious objection is this: The deal with Nokia was widely misunderstood by the public. Top management chose to leave it that way. Then they profited from this misunderstanding by selling at prices artificially levitated (as we now realize) into the 60's. I consider this to be an abuse of trust. Your letter diplomatically leaves out mention of this.
Conscious manipulation of stock prices through misinformation or deceitful outbursts of opinion, or omission or distortion of facts is IMO a mean and even evil behavior. When I begin to respect and appreciate a poster for his intelligent and sophisticated insights, even though they are negative, and then I am presented with a post of his that states"it may be time to jump ship", I am confused. Why was this posted on another board? Is this person really unable to handle the anxiety that we all feel? Or does this poster have a concealed agenda as some of our more suspicious colleagues have said? I suppose I'm naive but I still don't believe that. I, for one, would appreciate a note explaining why he felt that it was worthwhile to post the "jumping ship" message on Yahoo. I would then also appreciate his continuing his interesting and informative posts.
TeeCee
You're betting that we'll win and so am I. (I bot again today)
But if we lose and the price goes to $5.00/share, you'll not only have a loss on your long position but a $6.50/share loss on the puts you sold. I hope for both of us that you're right.
Warbil, excellent post
You have clearly stated what I and others have believed for a long time. The Ericy case is not primarily about cash but about admission of infringement and setting of royalty rates. If the cash settlement comes over a period of years, that would be acceptable.
Musings pertaining to the new board:
1. What happens to paid up lifetime members, who are way out of line.? How will they be dealt with?
2. Does paying $130 to this board somehow limit our leverage. With many of the most significant contributors signed up on this board, will we be more hesitant about jumping ship again?
3. We have been on this board for only a few days and we are already learning that there is consideration of rules changes regarding a reduction in posts from 18 to 10 for the "free" members. What can we expect the rules to be a year from now?
4. This board will probably change hands as most boards eventually do. The new owners will not know us and probably not give us the kind of attention we are getting now.
5. If we win the Ericy dispute, I won't mind paying an increased rate to this board. If we lose, I doubt that I'll be too involved with IDCC on any board.
With these things in mind, I think I'll invest my $130 in 7 or 8 more shares of IDCC and review my options after the 1/31 deadline for lifetime owners. There will probably be other promotions down the road anyway. Sorry if I've offended some loyalists here. I'm just trying to apply the same principles to paying for this board as I do in paying for my other investments
Jim, I appreciate your efforts. EOM