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.
Sorry Ellis, noted his attitude only very briefly. Focused more on the discussion & capturing notes. Kind of felt it was salesmanship & hoped the judge would dismiss the salesmanship & focus on the facts. The salesmanship by both Nokia & IDCC whether at the trial, ASM or news releases may factor into negotiations but the ITC decision will be based on facts. JMHO
OT - Wouldn't mind getting together with you, Revlis, Squingebob & others in the DC/Baltimore area sometime for food & drink.
Dave
Sorry, have to work. Hoping Revlis can attend. Friday was the only day I could attend.
Dave
Olddog - Follow up to my earlier response
I read an additional 100 pages of the transcript. The information that I read in the transcript is different than what Ellis and I heard Friday. It appears to be information that would/could follow the information we heard on Friday. i.e. No claims construction discussion or comparison between Samsung/Nokia/Lucas paper relative to implementation. I agree with my3sons post today. Mr Lanning appears to be a yes man for the Nokia lawyer based on the transcript.
The only primary area of interest to note would be the following:
From the 1st transcript starting on page 1973 it indicates IDCC & Nokia at this point in time estimated they still needed 3 hours & 15 minutes to complete. They also had already covered much more information in the transcript than what Ellis & I heard on Friday. FYI, Mr Levi also stated he needed ~10 minutes.
JUDGE LUCKERN: How much longer do you
think you’re going to go? We started at 8:30,
it‘s now 10:15. How much longer do you think
you’re going to go in your direct examination
of this witness?
MR. CHERENSKY: Hopefully I can get it
done in an hour. It might be an hour and 15.
JUDGE LUCKERN: And based on what
you’ve heard so far, Mr. Anzalone, how much
cross do you think you have? Again, I’m not
holding you, I want to know where we’re going
today.
MR. ANZALONE: Two hours.
Based on the above transcript information it will be very difficult to complete the case Tuesday and there is a risk that IDCCs cross questioning could be cut short. Maybe this is a Nokia game plan. JMHO
Hi Olddog,
I read pages 2302 – 2318. No mention during the testimony by Mr Lanning while we were in the court room similar to the transcript. i.e. No mention of the libraries in Germany or Brittan or Ms. Hagemann. The only mention of Lucas during the testimony of Mr Lanning that I recall from my notes was that Lucas was a part of CODIT which thanks to your link I now know what CODIT means. It was a 1 time mention as I recall kind of out of the blue.
Ellis – If you remember any other mention of Lucas by Mr Lanning please chime in.
FYI - Mr Lanning was already sworn in and seated when we returned from a previous witness’s confidential testimony. They were still establishing his Qualifications as an expert in cellular architecture so I assumed we only missed the oath and a few introductory statements but that is only my assumption.
I also read the 1st 30 pages of the 1st transcript. The one thing I did not state in part 4 of my summary was that the testimony of Mr Lanning is not done. The Nokia lawyer stated at ~noon it was a convenient time to break for the day. After reading the document you provided the link for, I now ASSUME everything we heard from Mr Lanning APPEARS TO ME to only be a possible set up for entry into a discussion of the Lucas paper and it’s association with the current CDMA based cellular architecture. i.e. Describing the method of data transmission using spreading code, the method of power ramp up currently used and the mention of Lucas and association with CODIT. If my tea leaf reading above is correct, Tuesday should be a pretty key day. This also makes the discussion of remaining time left stated by IDCC and the strong objection by Nokia to extending the case time line much more meaningful. i.e. Will IDCC be given adequate time to cross question Mr Lanning. I will try to read more of the transcripts provided later tonight.
Once again this is just me trying to read tea leaves and JMHO.
IDCC/Nokia ITC Friday session part 5 (last part)
Before wrapping up for the day the judge asked both sides if they were comfortable with case completion Tuesday by noon. Nokia said yes. IDCC said there were more than the 3 ½ hours scheduled for Tuesday left in the time allotted for both sides. Nokia said they strongly objected to the case being extended in time. IDCC & Nokia basically agreed they could finish by noon Tuesday after several minutes of 3 way discussion (no IDCC/Nokia case time scheduled for Monday).
My3sons requested Ellis and me to provide our thoughts of what we heard today as if we were the jury. Unfortunately that is basically impossible. Everything we heard today was 1 sided. i.e. We heard the IDCC cross questioning but not how it was presented when Nokia asked the questions. We also heard the Nokia witness when the Nokia lawyer asked questions but not the cross questioning by IDCC.
I would say both legal staffs from my non-legally trained perspective sounded/performed well today.
I would say IDCC scored points questioning the 1st witness relative to no direct reference to the Lucas paper.
I would say IDCC scored points questioning the 2nd witness relative to no clearly defined UE ID convolution encoder design definition and the 579 patent being awarded in spite of Dr KaKaes claim of patent invalidity.
I would say Nokia had Mr Lanning clearly define base station simultaneous user operation, WLL operation and that Mr Lanning could not find a USPTO correlation of power ramp up patents and CDMA.
The only way to judge how the case is going would be to hear all of the presentations.
Thanks goes out to Jim and all that have contributed to all of Jim’s boards over the past years to help us get through all of the ups and downs by having the best group of contributors from all of the various backgrounds to provide wisdom whether positive of negative information/data is provided. I could not have hung in there the past 10 years without the help. THANKS!
IDCC/Nokia ITC Friday session part 4
Ellis and I were let back into the court room at ~11:20 and Mr Lanning (last witness for the day)was on the stand. He was declared as an expert witness in cellular architecture and a Nokia lawyer was directing the questions. The previous Nokia witnesses were being asked questions by IDCC. Since Mr Lanning was a witness for Nokia and the lawyer was from Nokia the interaction between the 2 was very flowing and polished. Mr Lanning had previously created slides defining the history of telephony from Marconi through CDMA. The slides were presented as an overview of the evolution of frequency sharing systems. He then discussed slides previously created showing how digital data is transmitted, digital data transmission using spreading code using 4 bit XOR, and bipolar notation ( +1, -1). He then showed how using spreading code enabled multiple users to transmit simultaneously and that the base station could correlate the users using the composite signal provided the base station knew the users spreading code. He showed the math to create the composite signal. He said that unless a base station knew the users spreading code multiple users could not simultaneously transmit.
Mr Lanning then talked about the CODIT project and RACE. He said Lucas was a part of RACE (it was not clear to me if the Lucas paper was a part of CODIT or Lucas himself). There was also mention of a CODIT final report. (CODIT is new to me. I no nothing of this effort)
Mr Lanning then briefly defined how a wireless local loop (WLL) design works and that it has a tighter timeline.
It appeared to me that Nokia wanted to make the point that a WLL design was different than how a base station has to work for simultaneous use and that Lucas was part of CODIT.
Next Mr Lanning discussed the power ramp up patents. He defined how a pilot signal is sent from a cell phone until an acknowledgement is received and that the signal power is increased until the acknowledgement is received. He gave much more detail but this conveys the point. Mr Lanning next stated he searched the USPTO for a reference of CDMA and the power ramp up patents. He said he could not find a connection. (my term for him not finding a match)
I think Nokia was trying to convey that it would “appear” that the power ramp up patents are not tightly coupled to CDMA in my opinion.
IDCC/Nokia ITC Friday session part 3
When Ellis and I returned to the court room Dr Kakaes was already sworn in and answering questions from IDCC relative to a 16 bit UE ID ½ rate scrambling/convolution encoder design. The discussion then centered on the origin of the design definition and method for UE specific coding. Several diagrams submitted as exhibits were then shown (apparently from working group documentation or specifications) and Dr KaKaes was asked if the diagrams clearly defined the UE ID encoding design. As Ellis said in his summary Dr KaKaes did not want to clearly answer the question and twice the judge specifically asked Dr KaKaes the same question and Dr KaKaes said no. The discussion then turned to patent 6,973,579. Apparently Dr KaKaes previously stated he believed the 579 patent was invalid (I believe the document showing the patent invalidity description was also part of the Samsung ITC case). An exhibit was shown which documented Dr KaKaes position on the patent. An exhibit was then produced that showed the patent was awarded by the patent examiner. The patent examiner said in a document something to the effect that the prior art fails to teach using a high speed shared controller…. (sorry, pen could not keep up with the graphic)
Mr Levi then asked a question after IDCC finished asking questions. He asked a question relative to claims 3 & 4. Dr KaKaes then tried to explain the difference between convolution versus a block encoder. When he finished explaining the difference Mr Levi appeared to stand there for a couple of minutes trying to determine whether the question was answered (my opinion). Although I am fairly technical and pretty much understood his explanation I did not connect the dots and understand the point he was trying to make. Kind of looked like the same for Mr Levi. Once again just my opinion. Maybe there was other testimony earlier which made the discussion relevant to the point being made.
Just before Ellis and I were kicked out once again they stated that IDCC had 1:23 left to present in the case and Nokia had 4:23 left. i.e. ~6 hours left to present in the case and it was ~11am and the day was scheduled to end at noon..
IDCC/Nokia ITC Friday session part 2
A Nokia witness was sworn in so that IDCC could question the witness. I am assuming the witness presented yesterday but IDCC did not get a chance to question the witness. Sorry, I could barely hear the name of the witness but it sounded something like Dr. Motahli. IDCC stated to the judge that the witness was a late addition to the witness list and they had objected to the addition of the witness. IDCC requested to use an “adverse direct” of the witness. Legal eagles please chime in on exactly what this means. The IDCC lawyer (Coyne) then asked multiple specific questions (my opinion – seemed to be leading the witness to get specific points across) The witness said he worked on RACE research in advance communication in Europe starting in 1989 and joined Nokia in 1992 working in Helsinki. He said he attended 6-7 RACE work shops and presented at 4 of the work shops. (I assumed the work shops were conferences) The discussion next focused on the May 14th 1994 work shop. The witness wrote a paper for the workshop. He also said that he and other colleagues when they wrote the papers were careful to keep confidential information out of the papers. The IDCC lawyer asked if any Americans attended the work shop. The witness said he was only aware of Professor Goodman as the only American attending the conference. Based on the interaction between the witness and the lawyer apparently the professor worked with Nokia. The witness said he received a book at the conference (I assumed this was a collection of papers presented at the conference). He said the book was added to the Nokia library. A Nokia catalog item was displayed for the book added to the Nokia library. The catalog item did not make any reference to the Lucas paper. A point was also made that the Nokia library did not have a catalog item for the Lucas paper. The witness was asked if he ever read the Lucas paper. He said he did not believe he had read the Lucas paper. The IDCC lawyer then asked if the Nokia library was open to the public. Response was no. Summary of the rest of the discussion was that you had to be a Nokia employee to get into the library and the library/building was protected by a Nokia guard. Ellis and I were then sent out of the court room.
My opinion of the above questioning was to make the point that there “appeared” to be no direct reference to the Lucas paper based on the Nokia cataloging of the work shop document, no catalog entry of the Lucas paper in the Nokia library and that the workshop was only attended by Professor Goodman who performed some work for Nokia. i.e If the Lucas paper was/is prior art it was not readily available. I have no idea what was said on the previous days relative to the Lucas paper or during the confidential times when we were kicked out but I thought Coyne did a nice job of pointing out that the paper was not easily identified and if discussed at the work shop that only 1 American attended the conference. He also made the point that even the witness had not believed he had read the Lucas paper.
IDCC/Nokia ITC Friday session part 1
Sorry for the delay, stayed in DC after the court session and just got home. I agree with Ellis, kudos to all that covered the past ITC days for Samsung & Nokia. Due to time limitations the question/answer sessions are fast paced and well rehearsed when interaction occurs between witnesses and lawyers that are affiliated with the same company. My perception. We also were asked to leave several times and spent as much time outside the court room as we did in the court room. The following is my summary based on what I heard or think I heard and the notes I took. Please take them for what they are, data based on my best efforts to hear and take notes.
The court convened at ~8:30. Both Nokia & IDCC appeared to have full sets of counsel on both sides. i.e. ~12 seats on both sides and all seats were used. There were also seats in the back without tables and each had 3-5 people on both sides. They appeared to be part of the counsels as only Ellis and I were excused when they went confidential and kicked us out.Mr. Levi (Staff attorney for the public) and 2 colleagues were also seated near the front of the court room.
The 1st 10-15 minutes were associated with discussion of a motion close out item. Apparently IDCC raised a motion on Thursday. Nokia requested that if the motion is filed that they receive a copy by Sunday 5pm. No mention was ever made as to the content of the motion but the Judge did state that the motion should be clear relative to what should be stricken.
I'm in court room. Black jeans and polo shirt. Everyone else in suits. 27 suits.
Can you please provide the time court will be in session on Friday?
Thanks,
Dave
Hi Mickey,
While I also hope for overwhelming news, I am prepared for the usual little financial public disclosure relative to the rate structure. I am looking forward to guidance but fear until it hits the bottom line and breaks the 10% threshold we may not know the true value of the agreement. Hope I am wrong.
Glad to see you back,
Dave
Talked to Jim Cramer at the national book festival in Washington, DC today for about 2 minutes. He said he is very happy that IDCC is doing well and he appears to be pretty knowledgeable with IDCC. Believes IDCC to be pretty similar with Qualcom. Believes IDCC is currently a hold. I asked him if he thought we might be $100 in 2-3 years. Only response was currently a hold. Glad to know the stock is on his radar screen and he considers it to be a local company to him.
Jim was polite, friendly and nice. He also said today that he is recommending the following stocks for what it is worth; Boeing, HP, AIG. He is bullish on stocks for the balance of the year. He is also going to change a stock he recommended last week as a buy to a sell since it has risen from ~$18 to $26 during the past week. Believe he said Kimberly Clark but not positive. If someone else follows his Thursday show they can correct the name of the stock.
Techinvester
FYI - IPWireless may be receiving attention due to homeland security issues
Northrop Grumman Wins $500 Million New York City Broadband Mobile Wireless Contract
New York City's Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation a five-year, $500 million contract to provide the city's broadband public-safety wireless network, the most comprehensive network of its kind.
This effort will enhance the city's existing mobile wireless communications network with high-speed data and video capabilities, and deploy several new, advanced wireless applications to support first responders and transportation personnel.
"Northrop Grumman's solution will provide our emergency responders with quick access to critical information in the field, enabling them to be better prepared to protect our city and its residents," said Commissioner of the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications Paul Cosgrave. "This decision comes at the end of a lengthy evaluation, including a pilot implementation in lower Manhattan during which equipment was tested and evaluated."
Northrop Grumman's New York City solution uses standards-based mobile broadband wireless technology, known as the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, provided by IPWireless of San Bruno, Calif. This technology delivers broadband mobility, high capacity, reliability, and scalability -- all suited to meet the real-time, fail-safe requirements of the program.
"For New York City, we have specifically designed and engineered a robust, secure, broadband mobile wireless communications solution that significantly streamlines and improves both emergency and normal daily operations," said Paul Chelson, Northrop Grumman wireless program manager. "This solution will provide critical information for emergency responders who protect and serve the residents of New York City."
Agree with your point but the public disclosure then becomes questionable from my naive perspective. What benefit is there for public disclosure beyond either A. influencing the price (self fulfilling prophecy) OR B. providing self promotion as a form of advertisement (see what I predicted came true, you should hire me)?
Thanks in Advance
Spree - After losing out on leaps in January 2005 & 2006, I have resigned myself to following IDCC's licensing progress, monitoring cell phone sales, and evaluating my position as events unfold. I have always been a long term holder and only speculated on options periodically. Could have made some money by selling for minor gains but held to expiration waiting for that deal that was always "eminent". Fortunately the $ expended was in my high risk/reward bin and was an acceptable loss. Based on the facts above, I have stopped speculating on future events and therefore forecasts of future stock prices such as 1/2008. I am pleased with the recent progress of IDCC and continue to believe $200 is still within the next 3-5 years maximum. Once again JMHO based on IDCC's forecast and the future cell phone sales predictions. Biggest fear I have is a buy-out of IDCC.
Good Luck!
Spree - Laughed at your $1000 quote when you made it but did actually buy 5,000 shares figuring $200 was realistic a few months earlier. Also did not count on the multiple delays. Hopefully that will be prophetic in the next 2-3 years. Hopefully sooner.
Good luck all!
Remember true up $ for past sells is included in the $95M payments. Royalty rate is unknown.
As usual, thanks for zero value added dmiller. Guess you just figure we are not intelligent enough to understand risks without your "expert" insights. Give it a rest please.
Amen! I have only been invested for 6 years but think I have hit capitulation. To all of the long time investors; how have you stayed strong for 10+ years? I've about hit the wall. If no progress in 6 months, I am out of here. Not waiting for the promise of 4G. TDSCDMA - Why should we believe China will recognize our IP when few other companies are willing to pay us???
Thanks,
Techinvester
Deleted, previous message discusses the issue.
Hi Ed,
I agree it is a simplistic assessment but also hoped revenue from other sources such as service contracts, AIM technology, and other WLAN royalty, etc. would help to fill the gap. Also, hoped after litigation that operating expenses would be significantly lower for IDCC vs. QCOM.
Thanks for the feedback,
techinvester
Hi Bulldzr,
I was hoping more for a multiple proportional to QCOMs in 3-5 years based on delta between the royalty rate of QCOM and IDCC. i.e. If the royalty rate of IDCC is 1/10th of the royalty rate collected by QCOM then hopefully the market capitalization of IDCC would be 1/10th of QCOM. The 1/10th estimate would be based on a royalty rate of 5% for QCOM and 0.5% for IDCC. This would also mean IDCC would have to license an equitable customer base equal to QCOM. Some fundamental assumptions but if true would indicate a share price far north of $30-35 in 3-5 years. Of course split adjustment if splits were to occur.
As a example even if the collected royalties were 1/20th of QCOM, IDCC's valuation for a comparable multiple would be approximately $60 in 3-5 years. (comparable multiple another fundamental assumption)
JMHO and personal hope of a possible future share price. Back to lurking,
Techinvester
Thank you for the response. My fear going forward is that the 3G accruals will become so large once again companies like Nokia will continue to defer payment/litigate and then settle for less than face value. We need a basis to force payment now as opposed to after the fact. IDCC has made great progress signing various companies to a 3G agreement but we still need the big boys to come on board.
Thanks
Rich, I appreciate both sides of the story and have been long this stock post the $82 run up in 1999 with a dollar cost average price of approximately $8. I struggle between chasing a dream and reality. I am having an extremely difficult time identifying an exit strategy and have been probably too long in this stock for the past 5 years. Would appreciate your opinion for a forecasted price 1 and 3 years out. I realize this is only a guess based on available information and will treat your response as such to factor into my exit strategy.
FYI - I am well versed in technology by trade but have not a clue into whether the big dogs will pay or when. Doesn't really seem to matter how good the technology is or how "essential" the technology is but more just financial business. Unfortunately my rose colored shades are cracked (Nokia 3G challenge) but still struggle to take them off. Care to fathom a guess whether Nokia is just positioning for a better 2G settlement and may agree to a combined 2G/3G settlement?
Good luck to all investors (long, short, traders and otherwise) as we are all just trying to make a good return with no malice. Thanks to all for the education the past 5 years both here and Raging Bull. Jim thanks for your at times thankless effort. You have been a great moderator!
Thanks in advance
Unfortunately the charge could be associated with the announced staff reductions. Hopefully not.
Televised sporting events may be a compelling case for mobile video. i.e. NFL, MLB, etc.
OT: Thanks DD, thats what I was afraid of.
Lack of arbitration news works both ways. Wouldn't notice of the impending start of arbitration be released by now?
OT - Data, Thanks for the reply and I look forward to your response to post 40136 by rmarchma. I am having difficulty understanding the sum total of which patents of IDCC could be indemnified by QCOM. I have followed IDCC for about 5 years but have never been able to understand quantity/quality of patents that IDCC declares as "essential". This issue becomes even further vague by those patents that may be covered by virtue of a license with QCOM. Thanks in advance for any light you may be able to shed on this issue or links that may provide enlightenment.
techinvester
Data - I do not understand the claim where QCOM has rights to continuation patents per your reference below. Can you please define where the rights to continuation patents have been granted? Also, one further question. What prevents IDCC from adopting the same stance as QCOM whereby whether you infringe 1 or many patents you pay the same rate? i.e. Except for MFL, everyone pays the same rate. Seems to level the playing field and simplify the process. Is it your opinion that this is not possible based on the missing leverage for IDCC?
From Data_Rox post on 4/1/2003 11:51:17 AM
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=885693
"The deal signed by previous IDCC management with Qualcomm allows Qualcomm to sub-license the particular patents involved in the settlement and continuations of those patents....I'm not talking new patents (or apps) here, but continuations."
Thanks for all of your insightful posts during the past several years,
techinvester
Yahoo states a concensus EPS estimate of -0.03 with a high estimate of 0.00 and a low estimate of -0.05 (only two analyst EPS estimates). They list 3 covering brokers; J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray.
Question relative to EPS listed on MSN Money web site
Per Jim's email yesterday, RBC raised their estimate for 2nd quarter to 0.00 from -0.03. MSN Money web site yesterday posted an FYI stating EPS decreased to -0.03. I hoped this was an error to be corrected. Today, MSN listed a second analyst EPS estimate of -0.05 and changed the consensus estimate to -0.04 from -0.03. Any insight into who is correct?
FYI from yesterday
Top alerts
----------------------------------------------------------------
07/15/03 Current quarter earnings estimate decreased.
EPS listed today
Consensus EPS Trend Qtr(6/03) Qtr(9/03) FY(12/03) FY(12/04)
Current Estimate -0.04 0.01 0.08 1.36
7 Days Ago -0.03 0.01 NA NA
30 Days Ago NA NA NA NA
60 Days Ago NA NA NA NA
90 Days Ago 0.06 0.54 1.23 NA
Thanks in advance,
techinvester
OT: Sailfreeee, My wife has used snapfish for digital photo printing and has been extremely pleased. On average 200-300 photos per month. Pricing $0.25/print for 100 prints. They are a reasonably priced developer and photos are received within typically two days. Their photo retouch software is very good and she likes their software better than the software received with her Cannon S30. Pretty decent camera. dotphoto.com is another site friends use that is cheaper and they seem happy with the service. Their cost is $0.18/500 prints. Both sites have scaled rates based on the number of prints to be made.
link to snapfish - http://www.snapfish.com/
techinvester
Ignore - Either site just down for a few minutes or web access problem. Anybody else having difficulties opening the InterDigital home page?
techinvester
JimLur, The next nine months will show whether we really are geniuses or idiots. I am still not sure that question has been answered. I am in the money and happy to be in the money but my return for the money tied up for years does not live up to my expectations. For that matter, based on previous posts by other longs, their expectations have also not been met. Most have posted they are happy with the settlement based on their assumption that 3G licenses and royalties are "just around the corner". What is the basis for this assumption? What convinces others to license promptly when on the surface it would appear delaying the act of licensing has no apparent down side. Until the 3GPP defines the companies truly holding essential patents, I am concerned we may be in for a lengthy wait for additional 3G licenses and royalties. I am hopeful that there is a basis for this assumption but it is not clear to me. I think the remainder of the year will provide definitive evidence whether we are truly geniuses or idiots.
Before I get labeled as a basher or short, I am long and have placed my faith in IDCC for more than 5 years with a substantial portion of my portfolio. I have also increased my position during the past two days. I am just concerned relative to the settlement. Good news has always been just around the corner. Why are we still struggling to break through the $20 resistance. If the numbers stated by IDCC are accurate and the settlement will provide sustained 2G royalties amounting to earnings of approximately $3/share shouldn’t IDCC command a share price of $45 to $60 based on a PE of 15-20? The lack of analyst recommendations and price targets could be the following; delay to enable their clients to purchase prior to recommendation, delay to verify numbers stated by IDCC, concern whether Nokia or Samsung will request arbitration, delay to determine other potential 2G licensees. I agree with Loop, clarification of the rationale for settlement should be provided. Hopefully this will become self evident over the balance of the year but I hope we are not still speculating the rationale next year at this time.
techinvester
PS: Sorry for the rambling but we should be moving from speculating (reading tea leaves) to IDCC providing forthright information.
Ken - While I agree this could be a good move for QCOM, Ed Ferrari stated previously that QCOM does not necessarily need IDCC to collect 3G royalties. His basis was the fact that QCOM states use of any QCOM patent invokes the 5% royalty. Seems to make sense but the buy strategically would enhance their position. I am hoping there is not a buy out of IDCC by anyone as I am in for the long haul. I would be inclined to sell my shares if the poison pill kicked in and a quick offer of $350 arrived.
I would think someone in the industry would be tempted to buy IDCC based on cash position, cash flow, and patent portfolio.
techinvester
I side with Loop. Although I am grateful for some reimbursement for improper usage of IDCC patents, we have been waiting for years and the resulting royalty rate is less than stellar. Across the multiple boards we have discussed unfulfilled promises or expectations always waiting for the next .... I believe progress has been made over the years but this example by virtue of settlement does not in my estimation promote urgency for others to pay royalties up front. Nobody seems to have considered the time value of money or lost opportunity costs. I do not have confidence that by virtue of this settlement Ericson will provide a pro IDCC 3G royalty rate. Where is the leverage? I hold out hope that the cross licensing will bear fruit but will wait to see the details without speculating. I also agree with others that based on the low Ericson royalty rate, Nokia and Samsung will attempt to negotiate lower royalty rates. Possibly the cross licensing will insulate the potential risk.
techinvester
wi-fi (802.11b) through the use of active beam steering can significantly increase the effective range of WLAN. The typical effective range currently is up to about 1500ft for 802.11b. The bandwidth degrades the further you are from the access point (antenna). The post copied below submitted previously contains a link stating the effective range was increased to 7 Km through better antenna design incorporating active beam steering. The active beam steering antenna also permitted usage by slow moving users. i.e. Personnel walking with PDAs etc.. The system could not be used by mobile users in a car.
Previous post by spencer #522
techinvester: There is a company that has created new base station technology which will extend the range of 802.11b up to 7 kilometers. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56166,00.html
techinvester
OT: Danny Detail - Ignore does not appear to work if you select view replies when a message is open. Ignore works from the message list but there appears to be a hole when you select the view replies tab.
techinvester