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.
One would think this is good news yet down 6% today?
Can someone explain this share price action? I thought this special dividend was good news.
Could someone post the new ITC schedule. Thanks.
"24 days till end of quarter and " still no 3Q guidance?
What's holding up 3Q guidance?
Does anyone know when Q3 guidance is due?
"Posts that focus on politics, politicians, or religion will be subject to deletion at the discretion of the board admins"
I find it hard to believe that CAFC is holding decision until deal or no deal is done. How many others feel like I do?
It is a very complicated deal in so many ways and that is why the process is taking so long, which IMO is good news. When this process started many believed that it would not take very long and made their bets accordingly. Unfortunately for many, this longer than expected process has caused the SP to deteriorate to its present level which does not surprise me at all.
Do people really believe the SP would hold in the 70-80 range (esp. in this market) after such a long delay? There are some that believe that the current SP is a reflection of NO sale or where the eventual SP will be. I for one do not believe the BOD would have started this process without having the confidence that their asking price was achievable!
I would like to reiterate from a previous post:
Do any IDCC longs really believe that the BOD would have put the company up for sale for less than $100 per share, given our fundamentals?
Do you believe that they would have hired Evercore to broker the sale unless there were some "serious" bidders who could meet their minimum? (I'm assuming that Evercore will get paid a large fee even if no deal gets done, ie: there must be "serious" interest to proceed.)
Do you believe that the BOD would have begun this process, which is very "disruptive" to the company's "business as usual", if there was not some "serious" interest?
Do you believe that the BOD would have begun this process, which allows the bidders to gain confidential information about IDCC, if there was not some "serious" interest?
This is a huge decision that the BOD is not taking lightly. I believe a good deal will get done but also believe that if a deal does not get done, there will be a temporary setback to "business as usual", but long term, the fundamentals will determine our future value.
CAFC is worthless!
This post is for IDCC longs who are losing faith in the company's potential value.
Much has already been said about the company's value, both high and low,
and for many reasons, but I would like to look at it solely from the BOD's point
of view.
Do any IDCC longs really believe that the BOD would have put the company up for sale
for less than $100 per share, given our fundamentals?
Do you believe that they would have hired Evercore to broker the sale unless there
were some "serious" bidders who could meet their minimum?
(I'm assuming that Evercore will get paid a large fee even if no deal gets done,
ie: there must be "serious" interest to proceed.)
Do you believe that the BOD would have begun this process, which is very "disruptive" to
the company's "business as usual", if there was not some "serious" interest?
Do you believe that the BOD would have begun this process, which allows the bidders to
gain confidential information about IDCC, if there was not some "serious" interest?
This is a huge decision that the BOD is not taking lightly. I believe a good deal will
get done but also believe that if a deal does not get done, there will be a temporary setback
to "business as usual", but long term, the fundamentals will determine our future value.
All of this IMO.
"the CAFC not wanting to upset the buyout apple cart"...hmmm
I do hear it...is it time to go all in?
Read the original post I responded to, has nothing to do with IDCC bid.
$2.5B, but good question.
"anyone remember the terms of their LTE license with IDCC?"
I thought IDCC had no LTE license with AAPL.
"scheduled auction and bids"...If this was false would IDCC or Evercore need to respond?
"I'm honestly not sure about Apple's license and whether or not it covers 4G/LTE"
It does not!
"The thought of another 12 quarters of enhanced legal fees fighting NOK would kill the erection of a 15 year old boy at a Cancun thong contest."
I needed a good laugh today...thanks for all your great analogies!
"The more logical way would be 'purchase' through an exchange of Stock."
If the deal is all stock, how is this handled if you have ITM call options? TIA
If the buyout includes shares, how does that work with in the money call options?
" I want to get back to watching the hockey celebration"
Congratulations Boston Bruins!
Well said and thanks for your contributions!
In the past I depended on this board for objective information...This board has become useless!
Could someone please respond to my previous question: "If Apple does not manufacture its own handsets why do they need a license?"
If Apple does not manufacture its handsets why do they need a license?
"Bottom line Merritt stated that Apple will not be a 10% contributor FOR PRODUCTS sold during the life of its license! That's the biggie is it not?"
For 2G and 3G that is probably true, but Apple is not licensed for 4G (LTE), so I feel confident we will be able to get a better contract with Apple by end of 2014.
"I suppose the basic question which would arise under my scenario, is what would make Apple give up its old sweetheart fixed-fee deal to enter into a new per-unit arrangement? I think the answer lies in IDCC's LTE and advanced LTE IPR. I firmly believe that Apple's old fixed-fee deal from 2007 did not include IDCC's LTE/advanced LTE IPR. This IPR is what would necessitate either an amended fixed-fee license with Apple or a new per-unit license with Apple."
That is exactly what I thought, and if true, wouldn't this be material and require an announcement?
I agree with everything you said but cannot understand why NOK does not settle before the CAFC rules...it does not make any sound business sense especially when they are trying to turn the company around?
Does that apply for per unit licensees?
thanks.
Can you clarify that 1-1-11 date, ie: Saturday New Years day? Thanks.
I was looking for historical data about how long it takes for similar cases. Thanks.
Is there any consensus about when the CAFC decision will be released at it's latest?
Have a gut feeling we'll get some Irish luck from St Paddy this Thurs.
"He must sell NOK, SNE & LG."...I'm starting to believe it really is "all about Nokia".
Could you share his response...TIA
"And no matter what happens today...OUR ENTIRE FUTURE IS ALL ABOUT NOKIA. Always has been, always will be."
IMO, I would not agree about "OUR ENTIRE FUTURE IS ALL ABOUT NOKIA", but would agree that signing up of the MEN and LG is "ALL ABOUT NOKIA".
" the questions by the panel will reveal a lot about their thinking"
Anyone from this board attending the hearing? I am especially interested in the panels body language.
"The gist of my findings is that for clear cut cases where all three judges agree.... the typical time is about 5-8 weeks. For cases that are more complex (but still unanimous), 7-10 weeks. For cases that have minority opinions...you can get to 12-20 weeks very easily, and much longer in some cases."
Will the parties know before the decision is made public and have time to avoid the public announcement by settling? Maybe NOK is more concerned about the negative publicity than paying a higher rate and will therefore go thru with the oral arguments and see if it goes in their favor.