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.
So if Nokia signed in Jan 1999 and then the ruling revalidating the patents came in Nov 1999 how could Nokia claim in Judge Lynn's court that they did not intervene because they thought Ericsson was winning. If I'm questioning Nokia I'd like to know why they were silent when this ruling took place.
Sounds to me that Ericsson was clearly losing at this point in time.
"As a result of the reexamination process, we have been able to add six additional patent claims disclosed by the specifications to the patents which were reexamined. While those additional claims are not part of the Ericsson litigation, we believe they strengthen our TDMA patent portfolio and help us in our ongoing work to build a substantial licensing program."
Anyone know the date of the Nokia contract signing?
With the patent revalidation in Nov 1999 hard to imagine that Nokia signed in 1999 and was not following this event very carefully.
11/22/1999 9:23:00 AM - InterDigital Receives Notice of Patent Office's Intent to Affirm Certain Patents
Patent Office Notices Affirm Three of the Claims Involved in Ericsson Litigation. Other Claims in Ericsson Litigation not Part of Reexamination Process.
I doubt very much after this announcement that Nokia thought Ericsson would win.
My first IDCC purchase was very lucky. I bought in about a month before the 99/00 run. Sold out on the way down from the run locking in very unexpected profits.
I've been posting on message boards since 97. Learned a lot about the market and technology. A fellow message board poster tipped me off to IDCC in 99 right after some of their patents were revalidated. Got back in after the drop from $81 and have been in since. IDCC is now my largest investment.
22-Nov-99 9.56 12.00 9.56 10.38 5,233,700 10.38
19-Nov-99 6.06 9.25 6.06 8.44 3,744,300 8.44
18-Nov-99 5.38 6.00 5.38 6.00 522,700 6.00
"11/22/1999 9:23:00 AM - InterDigital Receives Notice of Patent Office's Intent to Affirm Certain Patents
Patent Office Notices Affirm Three of the Claims Involved in Ericsson Litigation
Other Claims in Ericsson Litigation not Part of Reexamination Process
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 22, 1999-- InterDigital Communications Corporation (ASE: IDC) announced today that its subsidiary, InterDigital Technology Corporation (ITC), has received from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Reexamination Certificates on two TDMA patents and a notice that it intends to issue a reexamination certificate confirming the validity of a third TDMA patent.
As stated in InterDigital's December 23, 1997 press release, ITC had requested reexamination of three of its U.S. patents(a) to further strengthen its TDMA patent portfolio and licensing program, which has produced nearly $250 million in royalty revenue to date.
The reexamination was also requested as part of the Company's efforts in its patent infringement lawsuit with Ericsson filed by Ericsson in September 1993 in the Federal Court in the Northern District of Texas. Two of the reexamined patents are among the patents involved in that lawsuit.
Harry Campagna, Chairman of InterDigital, explained, "Our subsidiary wanted to reconfirm the validity of our patents in light of prior art brought to our attention following litigation with Motorola in 1995 and in our various patent proceedings throughout the world. This action by the PTO helps to strengthen ITC's position in its licensing program around the world."
In the reexamination process, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office conducts an examination of each claim in a patent in relation to prior art to assess whether that art discloses the claimed invention. A claim defines the scope of an invention. ITC submitted 28 patent claims, from three patents, to the PTO for reexamination.
In its Certificates and Notices, the PTO confirmed the patentability of 24 patent claims in their original form, and confirmed the patentability of the remaining four claims in somewhat modified form. None of the claims involved in the Ericsson litigation had to be modified.
"The PTO's decision supports our belief that InterDigital, through its inventions, is an important contributor to the commercialization of TDMA-based wireless standards around the world, including GSM, IS-136, PDC and others," said Howard Goldberg, Interim President of InterDigital and President of ITC.
"As a result of the reexamination process, we have been able to add six additional patent claims disclosed by the specifications to the patents which were reexamined. While those additional claims are not part of the Ericsson litigation, we believe they strengthen our TDMA patent portfolio and help us in our ongoing work to build a substantial licensing program."
(a) U.S. patent numbers 4,785,450; 4,817,089; and 5,022,024.
"What are the chances Forbes will issue an apology and (partial) retraction?"
IMO, .00001% to 0%. The fact that no one has even received an acknowledgement that they have even contacted Forbes tells me that all of our emails got deleted and the subject is over as far as Forbes is concerned.
Maybe they balance it out with another totally separate article from a different writter whose spin is more positive.
It doesn't add up because they are really having a hard time beleiving IDCC will win versus NOK/SAM.
Basically they have to include the numbers because that is what the company is telling them they will receive. Leaving the price target at $21 is a way of expressing doubt that the company will achieve these numbers, IMO of course.
No analyst worth their weight in stock certificates will go out on a limb and give IDCC a high price target while arbitration is going on. Anything can happen and these guys need to protect their clients from this without blantantly claiming that IDCC is wrong in the earnings forcast.
Again, IMO these guys are doing exactly what they are suppose to do, pay attention to the happenings at KOP. When the events unfold in a favorable manor i.e. new licenses, arb settlement then you will see proper price targets.
Could be but I really like this move. The company is responding to complaints instead of fighting the tide and defending a weak position. It makes sense to add outside directors with no current ties to the company and wireless industry experiance. The Carpenter report bascially stated that more BOD wireless experiance was needed. They could have easily gone in "bunker mode" and ignored Carpenters suggestions. TC's report was pretty hard and was a direct shot at HC.
So far we have less insider sales, new directors and promise of new 3G licenses all points Carpenter made in his downgrade report. Now all we need is for Merrit to deliver and I bet we get upgrades from both Carpenter and Marsala.
It appears that one of the new directors have Motorola ties.
" Alan P. Zabarsky, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Technology Consulting Associates, Inc. and former Corporate Vice President at Motorola".
Without tea leaves one can speculate that this new director might have some very good knowledge of how IDCC can get a Motorola signiture on a contract.
Jim,
Again, Great idea for a letter writing campaign. I'd also encourage every letter to be posted here and CC'D janet.point@interdigital.com.
Jim,
Great idea on the letter writting to Forbes. Only way for our collective voices to be heard. I would like to add a recommendation that all letters be CC to Janet Point at IDCC.
Dear Mr. Forbes,
As an Interdigital Communication shareholder I am writing to you to ask you to please clarify the article posted about IDCC by Ms. Macdonald in the Dec. 22nd edition of your magazine. In my opinion Journalist should be unbiased and present facts on both sides letting the reader determine the which side is right or wrong. This article is taken completely from the point of view of a Nokia representative and shows no fairness or respect for IPR(Intellectual Property Rights).
These rights have helped create this great country. Patents and copyrights protect inventors and investors alike. Without this protection we might as well become a civilization of pirates and steal everything we can get our hands on. How is Nokia using inventions created by Interdigital different from a bootleg CD producer selling copies of Beatles CD's and not giving any revenue to the artist or the record companies?
To be fair, I would ask for a follow-up article with a more balanced approach.
Thank You
The only damaging quote in the article was this one by Howard "Any company can design around our patents, but our inventions are the simplest, most elegant and cheapest way to make a handset,". I'm very suspect of quotes that end in comma's instead of periods. Kind of makes you wonder what he said after and before this quote and what question was asked that had this quote as its answer.
I'd like to have Howard clarify this statement. As far as the rest of the article, no big deal, been their heard that.
Same goes for Marsala's quotes ""Its strategy is so difficult," another one of those comma ending quotes. After readings Marsala's report this week I do not beleive he is negative on IDCC. He is wait and see what happens from here.
Seems to me the author is focusing on Franks doubts which are well documented.
My biggest concern is Merrit right now. Not only did he put his rep on the line but if he doesn't deliver it will be another serious blow to the companies credibility.
As for the revisited Insider sales issues I think they are a dead horse right now. Before this year IDCC management had a printing press called unlimited stock options when they lost at the ASM the press got shut off and insider sales have slowed.
As for the announced numbers in the ERICSSON press release my take is that this was probably a deflection on the low number in the ERICSSON settlement and also the ability to finally anser a question that analysts have been asking for years. How much revenue will Nokia be paying. I've heard this question on at least 2 CC's over the past few years.
Basically, Howard has got some splaning to do and Uncle Bill must deliver.
Thanks Ronnie, absolutely brilliant.
I don't agree. I think the report was good and gave a clear picture of the situation mentioning a number of times that the upside potential is big. IMO, a neutral rating is better than no rating at all. It means that these guys are paying attention to the situation. If things change it will be very easy to upgrade.
P.S. Love to hear Danny Details take.
I beleive a valuation of 10x sales on a foward going basis is proper in this environment. If Nokia and Sam settle and the revenue exceed $200 million per year than a $40 price target is appropriate. If we are at $35 after the settlement yes they will put a buy rec with a price target of $40+. Right now I beleive they are waiting to see what 3G contracts will be announced. If the revenue that will be realized by these contracts is meaningful ($1+ million per quarter) then they will upgrade, IMO.
He is doing what he should be doing, wait and see. As investors and speculators we can buy shares based on what we will think will happen, 3G Licenses before 2004 hits. I've increased my position yet again based on this belief. As an analyst, Marsala needs to be more cautious. He wants to see signed contracts before he sticks his neck out again.
IDCC convinced all last spring that NOKIA/SAM was done and it was fill in the blanks time. Marsala's as well as Carpenter's clients lost money because this did not turn out to be true. Both these analysts are back. Both are wait and see.
Let's get a signed contract(s) and see how they react. If they don't upgrade then they deserved to be slammed. But until IDCC delivers they have a right to view this investment as a hold.
"They aren't arguing that they don't owe something."
I disagree. Nokia is playing the "Kitchen Sink" defence. That means throwing out every single argument they possibly can have and hoping one works. The ERIC/SONY not a trigger is still to be addressed. So if they lose the trigger argument they can go back to the reduced IPR argument.
Perfect Storm.
If Marsala started with a neutral and Tom Carpenter also has IDCC a hold a new license or licenses would cause IMO at least 2 upgrades. Since no news came this week lets hope for Mon/Tues press release regarding new signee. Then we get Weds/Thurs analyst upgrades and new trading range of $24 to $25 a share. That would absolutely fill my XMAS list.
On speculation we have been led to beleive that two of the triggers in the 1999 contract are Ericsson and Motorola. All we can say with certainty is the ERICSSON is definitely one. Is there a 3rd? Lately people have been taking about LU but that can only be for infrastructure. I do beleive from partions of the contract that were made public that the specific trigger manufactures were named.
The only company that IDCC can sign which will affect the ERICSSON trigger is Motorola.
IDCC will not sign Motorola before NOK/SAM arbitration.
"On the other hand, IMO seeing some "business partners" take 5% to 10% equity positions in IDCC by purchasing some of the "authorized but not yet issued" shares the company has locked in the corporate vault would be a good thing."
I'd like to see IDCC get creative with NOK/SAM and get this thing settled. IMO, cash payments don't mean squat compared to future revenues. I'd use the past due amount in some sort of equity transfer maybe using the past due money to purchase shares.
The way I see it if we get $250 mil cash we will go up $5 a share. ($250 mil cash / 50 mil shares = $5.00
If we get $25 mil a quarter we get $20 a share ($100 mil revs time 10 x = $1 billion / 50 mil shares = $20 a share).
Right now I'd concede the lump sums to a degree in order to gain future value.
Microsoft doesn't buy they STEAL.
CSCO or anyone else for that matter won't pay anything near the future value.
With the stock trading in this range $20 to $21, a fair buyout price would be in the $30 to $50 range.
This company should not be sold until after NOK/SAM arb and then I don't think it should be sold either.
The current valuation for IDCC about 10x Revs.
Little over $100 million per year ($26 mil this quarter x 4)
Little over 1 Billion market CAP ($20 x 55 million shares)
If valuation of 10x revs hold NOK/SAM settlement on revenue going foward should eventually bring us to a $2 billion market cap or $40 a share.
NOK/SAM foward revenues without past due amounts would equal approximatelly $25 mil per quarter or $100 mil per year.
So anything less than $40 a share would be a very BAD deal for IDCC and shareholders.
"i say unleash the hungry lawyers on every consumer who has ever purchased a phone w/ "stolen ipr"
Hmmmm, seems that you are changing your tune. I remember when I wanted IDCC to release F & J on Samsung/MOT or LG and you were in total disagreement.
IMO, The problem for NOKIA is they need the 99 contract for 3G also.
So NOKIA fights tooth and nail to invalidate IDCC 2G patents. They somehow get out of the 99 contract. Now they face litigation of their 3G patents because the 99 contract protects NOKIA from both 2G and 3G.
This is not doom and gloom. I beleive Howard last CC when he stated that they may have a SUPRISE in store for NOKIA.
"THE CALLER: Then, just a Nokia question on that issue. Is there any leverage that you guys have today? Is there anything you can do to influence Nokia to bring this matter to a close -- here I'm talking about things like bringing injunctions against them -- shipping handsets -- things of that sort of. So, I'm curious about that.
HOWARD GOLDBERG: Let me first say that we certainly will look at every point of leverage. The dynamics in a situation such as this are very important. We will look -- and have been looking -- at how we can drive this to a successful resolution. Through internal and external resources. One of the ways that leverage is best used is as a surprise or -- certainly you don't want to create an anticipation of anything that you may do. So, the answer is yes. But I would be very reluctant to talk about it and layout our plan for dealing with this particular matter."
A very BIG WIN for shareholders.
What was NOKIA trying to accomplish?
From the 8K
"Pending access to the requested documents, Nokia is seeking to prevent the commencement of arbitration proceedings that would determine royalty amounts owed to ITC for the period starting January 1, 2002."
Now Judge Lynn did not give them the documents so they can go fishing and gave them NO REASON AT ALL to prevent the commencement of arbitration proceedings because if the arbitrators want them they can have them.
So this is better than a denial because no stall tactic can take place.
Ghors,
Many thanks for the excellent job you and the iteam did for all shareholders.
Jai
Item 5. Other Events
InterDigital Communications Corporation (“InterDigital”) announced today that it and its wholly-owned subsidiary InterDigital Technology Corporation (“ITC”, collectively with InterDigital, the “Company”) have received from Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) a request for arbitration filed with the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (“ICC”). Samsung is seeking to have the ICC determine that its obligations under our existing patent license agreement with Samsung are not defined by our license agreements with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson or, in the alternative, to determine the amount of the appropriate royalty due. Samsung also has requested the ICC to consolidate the matter with the ICC arbitration involving Nokia Corporation and the Company and to make a determination that Samsung is entitled to seek access to documents previously sealed by the Federal Court related to the now-settled Ericsson litigation. The Company intends to contest Samsung’s claims and has thirty days after receipt from the ICC of notice of the arbitration to respond, file counterclaims, and seek other appropriate relief.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=70
3:46 in Dallas tick, tok,
My how time stands still when you clock watch.
"Show me sustainable growth, not just the hope of, and I'll jump on your wagon. "
This isn't about any bandwagon. This is about good old fashion research. Many of us here have been extremely critical of the company and their actions over the years. When we talk about the potential of $100 dollars a share it is done because of a deep understand of the situation that is at hand and not because of us "hyping" a stock.
I'm a newbie on this company and I'm here for about 4 years now. I've done a tremendous amount of research and feel that this is one of the top investments left in the market. I like high potential plays and I'm doing very well on them right now.
Also I don't think this board is about converting people or trying to get anyone to buy into the story. I've said this before, I think this is the most talented message board on the internet. This is about shareholders and potential shareholders sharing thoughts and research. This is about using knowledge to its fullist advantage in the market. Whether you beleive or not is not what this board is about. You bring a skill here of technical trading. Data_rox and infinite_q have a deep understanding of wireless technology, Ronnie accounting, Loop the law, Danny_Detail and TeeCee the street and JimLur is about the best leader you can a board can possibly have.
This is more about an investment community than a "bandwagon". Right now this community is very, very positive. This can change. But don't confuse confidence with hype. That is not fair to the people who have done so much work in giving the readers of this board a very clear picture of what the IDCC situation is.
I have to disagree with you here. I'm here for the home run just like many other people. I put IDCC's valuation potential at between $100 and $200 a share. That is a hefty target and some 500% to 1000% percent above the current levels.
Now you say how do I come out with these "pie in the sky numbers"?
Right now QCOM and IDCC are basically selling for 10x revenues.
QCOM Revenue (ttm): 3.97B Market Cap: 35.14B
IDCC Revenue (ttm): 87.90M Market Cap: 1.13B
So in order for my low end target of $100 a share to hit IDCC would have to do about $125 million a quarter.
That would be $500 million a year and 10x revs would be a $5 billion market cap.
5x$20 = $100 a share.
Right now we are at $26 million per quarter.
NOK/SAM 2G would be another $25 million per quarter.
The remaining $75 million needs to come from the following events.
NOK 3G
SAM 3G
LG 3G
ERICSSON 3G
LU 3G
NT 3G
FUTJISU 3G
PANASONIC 3G
IFX CHIPS 3G
MOT 3G
NEC 3G INCREASING
So in my opinion I'm still looking and expecting $100 a share, I'm just not expecting it next week.
"They have caused too much deep-seated ill-will with their ruthless business practices to remain at the top for much longer IMO".
That is what I've been saying about Microsoft for the last 18 years.
IMO, You don't win by fighting the 800 pound Gorilla. You figure out a way to make money with him. IDCC has a way and it is in the binding contract. Patience and good legal strategies is the only way for a long term win.
Back to Tom Carpenter, it sure appears that IDCC took his last report seriously. His two big issues on the downgrade were 1) New Licenses and 2) Insider selling sure seemed to be addressed.
Now what IDCC did to lead the CC was Meritts report on new licence progress and stressed the importance of it. Also I have not seen any insider selling recently and the 2 million share buyback did help in restoring analysts faith in IDCC equities.
I've never been a fan of company buybacks but in this case it seems to help IDCC's credibility.
I also beleive IDCC is in acqusition mode. They have cash and will look for companies with good IPR to bring under their relm.
I think TC's rating is fair. Right now IDCC has over a $1 Billion dollar market cap with a little over $100 million in projected sales. He wants to see concrete contracts that will bring the revenue higher and allow for IDCC to have a larger market cap. Makes sense to me.
That was the reason for the continued questioning of Merit on the potential Licenses. Without new Business Developments (NOK/SAM/NEW LIC) it would not be prudent for TC to reverse his earlier stance and change IDCC's rating to a buy.
I do beleive however he left room for this to happen.
"Bill Merritt, IDCC’s licensing chief, indicated that he expected additional licensing agreements by the end of 2003. When pressed further on the earnings call, he added that
the potential new deals would be with firms that you would recognize. Any new licensing agreements with firms that have noticeable handset market share would be extremely positive
for IDCC’s stock price, in our opinion. This would be especially true if the agreements covered 3G air interface standards such as CDMA 2001x or WCDMA."
So my interpretation of TC's report is if Meritt does what he claims he will do TC will change his rating to a buy.
I have no problem with Tom Carpenters report.
He got burnt bad by the Nokia arbitration and wants the wounds to heal before he sticks his neck out again. In his downgrade report he wanted IDCC to sign more companies. As of this date they have not. His tone in this report was much more neutral than the last one where he called for the Chairman's head and basically did not think a dry cleaner can head a wireless company.
Right now their is nothing concrete going foward to propel this stock to the next level. The quarter was great but without new licenses it will be difficult to justify valuations higher than these ($19-$20 a share). These guys can't speculate. They are analysts and must use contracts as revenue guides. He knows the upside of NOK/SAM but also knows how many people are currently not paying IDCC.
Let Meritt deliver 1 or 2 licences and TC will upgrade to a buy.
Looks like Tom Carpenter is in "show me the money" mode.
Meritt put his rep on the line to deliver. Once Meritt brings home some dotted line contracts TC will probably up his rating to buy.
Wasted space.
I think we should get back on track and let Ricardo look for de Plane. Way too many comments to and about this guy. If he is a basher by getting people to address him he accomplished his goal. If he is just an uninformed shareholder we should just point him to wirelessledger.com and tell him to "catch up".
Bashers use emotions to get everyone "off-track". They wish to get everyones focus off of positive events (CC, earnings and Nokia's motion) and onto old not relevant topics. By the number of posts to and about him it looks as if his mission was accomplished.
On the CC IDCC stated that two of the three arbitors have been selected and the third has not yet been agreed to. This tells me that the arbitration panel can not be waiting for Judge Lynn if the panel is not complete. I'll assume that arbitration can not start until all members of the panel have been selected.
I don't know maybe Jaykay and Co. can anwser that one?
I'm probably a newbie (in for about 4 years) but in that time we have consistantly been hoping that Nokia set a rate. The arbitration move changed my thinking. First I was upset at the company for declaring Victory and cashing out. After I got over the large haircut my portfolio took that day (I was buying after the Ericson settlement) I began to understand what IDCC was up against.
For years I thought Microsoft would lose. I did my masters Thesis on AT&T Unix versus IBM/MSFT DOS. I saw UNIX as a superior product and DOS/Windows as buggy and troblesome.
My investment strategy was betting against MSFT with NOVL. I lost and NOVL/IBM/LOTUS..etc etc lost.
The companies that won worked with MSFT. They fought their way to becoming the 800 pound Gorilla in the PC world and INTEL road on MSFT back to become the powerhouse that it is today.
That being said I do not beleive we can get Nokia to agree to anything that they do not clearly see as in the best interest for Nokia. Right now they view royalty payments as unneccesary costs of doing business and would like nothing more than to eliminate them completely. With this mindset how can you explain to them that they should set a rate? They will save money? They are not paying anything now so they can't save anything.
Nokia would steamroll over IDCC if they could just the way MSFT steamrolled over DR-DOS (The original inventor of DOS). Unfortunately for Nokia IDCC decided to build a solid legal team to help them protect their IPR. The loss to Harris by Ericson showed the strenth of the F & J team.
IDCC is now viewed as a hemiroid on NOKIA's butt. They want to preparation H the situation and hope they just go away. MSFT was famous for using smaller companies technology then just stealing it, leaving the inventors holding the bag. After listening to some of the recent Nokia statements they would like to just use IPR and not pay for it.
So I see a very long draw out battle ahead in both 2G and 3G when it comes to NOKIA/SAM/ERIC/MOT. These guys all have the Gorilla mindset. IDCC needs to do what they are doing. Getting deals done with NEC/SHARP/SANYO/RIMM, companies that respect IPR and understand that working together can make them more profitable. Basically the only way I see the big guys paying is by force.
Problem is we can't take Nokia to court only arbitration.
They have both 2G and 3G licenses. We locked them down on 2G via Ericson settlement now we have to figure HOW to get a 3G rate out of them.
I'm still of the opinion a 3G infringement suit against Motorola will be the way we may have to go. They are most likely one of the named companies for 3G triggers. Maybe ERICSON gives us a rate but they are in bed with NOKIA on the 3G CAP. IDCC has nothing to lose by going after Motorola again. They got a free ride on 2G and are not paying a dime.
Now I know that IDCC does not wish to start a law suit at this time for fear of slowing 3G momentum. I just can't see Motorola ever paying without being forced to. Nokia and Samsung have contracts stating what they should pay and they won't. Why would Motorola pay? They have already beat IDCC in court so they probably figure they can do it again.
Bottom line, I see a Motorola suit as unavoidable unless IDCC wants to give Motorola a free pass.
IDCC is doing what it is suppose to do right now. Down playing the arbitration fight as normal course of business and stating that they have the resolve to take this process to completion. This is a polite way of telling the public that they are not caving. Any attempt for IDCC to attack Nokia would be foolish. They ARE a very important business partner. Nokia IS the 800 pound Gorilla of the wireless world. You don't go after them with interest payments or provoke them in anyway.
Nokia has no interest in settling right now so they won't just like Ericson had no interest in settling until the last minute. I really like the move of concentrating on new licenses. This is what can get done. Arbitration will take a year. They can continue with the plan to ensure that their technology is used and they are getting paid for that use with other companies besides Nokia and Samsung. Nokia can call IDCC every name in the book and throw out all the acqusations of insider trading they want. IDCC must politely state their position and wait for an arbitrator to tell them the results. IDCC needs NOKIA more than NOKIA needs IDCC.
In the end NOKIA will reluctantly pay because an arbitrator will make them. They will then turn freindly for a short period until it is time to fight yet again on 3G rates and then NOKIA will start this thing all over again.
Microsoft for years stole IPR and crushed smaller companies in its way. That is how they got so big. The only way to get treated fairly when going against these massive monopolies is to utilize the legal system and that is what IDCC is doing.
Thanks Jim.
Sorry if this was asked before.and I understand your frustration with this topic. I do not have any kind of relationship with Janet so if she turned you down I would obviously be turned down.
I never really liked the idea of the buyback. Maybe it helped support the price while institutions were dumping. I'd rather give Merrit and IR more bodies to sign licensees and get the word out to investors about the potential here.
Getting answers is key for investors and I guess we will have to continue to ask questions 1 investor at a time then publish the answers on this fine message board you have spearheaded. Doesn't sound very efficient but what the hey.
I also like the published transcipts