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.
I didn't understand that. Are they saying there is no 180 day timeframe for a decision and this could go on indefinitely?
dmiller..what do you think the unknowns about the more than meets the eye liscense with Apple is? Do you think there is more money or a future agreement in place, or do you just think the board gets free Ipads? Just curious as they keep saying there is more to it than what can be said.
It certainly does look that way on the surface...but I'm shocked you think there is anything that can be done...look how often wall street gets caught being criminal with no punishment or just a slap on the wrist..look at the insider trading that they are finding amongst congressmen...they watchers are the ones that are the crooks.
That has to be great for IDCC imo
I keep thinking I should have sold at 58 of course...but then I realise I probably would have bought back in at 48-50 or even sooner not expecting it to drop this far...hind sight makes it much easier....if we win at the cafc and sign LG and others to the higher rate all of this will be moot...if we don't we'd be hurting anyway and who could have guessed the timing of the cafc...
Ronnie, excellent email
Yes that I think is the problem. But I think it's a problem with corporations in general...not just IDCC....if we can fix the whole system I am 100% behind that!
If I had the kind of money that management had...why in the world would they need to risk all of their eggs in one basket...in my case it is worth the extra risk because of the goal I have for my money. If I had their kind of money there is no need for that kind of risk. That is the way I look at it at least.
While I agree with you guys that it would be nice in respect to the MNGMT buying stock..I don't see this as an IDCC problem but a problem with corporations in general and how they compensate top execs. They already get so many free shares (through compensation) that it would be foolish to have any more invested in one area. I just don't see this as a very big issue compared to signing good liscenses.
I don't say you are wrong..but if that was the case I think they would have been likely to do it when the price was in the 20s/share, unless its a new player looking for defense.
That shocks me that many people say they didn't expect the iphone to be big....It had forums with people talking about it 24/7 months before it's release...I think many expected it to be huge....I am sure next time around (3 more years) IDCC will get the right contract signed.
Is that Gary Busey talking right now?
I'm pretty interested to hear today's call...hopefully there are some real developments to talk about from a business perspective.
:) I think that would be humorous is all...i'm sure it would be a conflict of interest.
Did he say if he bought any IDCC?
I think we might be talking about slightly different things....sorry if i caused any confusion...ultimately I am sure we are on the same side.
I agree with all of your points.
I think you are mistaken as to what I posted...I did not say Merrit made any comments at Barclays....I said that what they stated in their report makes it sound like it's a lot more about Nokia than management has stated in past calls. I'm sure if you go back and read my posts you will see that.
I am too afraid to miss the big run up to sell...but I definitely am more worried after that Barclays report...I mean aren't we all "worried" hah.
I go by the assumption that an analyst with a huge investment like Barclay's has better knowledge than me. That makes me nervous. The statement today indicates to me that there may be more downside risk with a CAFC loss than I thought there would be before (based on managements previous comments). I hope that is not the case but do you dispute the logic in that?
They definitely have lied repeatedly about it not being about Nokia and trying to make it sound like that is only going to play a minor role. In the ASM someone needs to address this.
OT: AKA not arguing... I wish I had more money to be a trader because everyday this thing spikes one way early...right now it shows up 66cents....and then within minutes it seems to drop a dollar or vice versa
nobody uses snarky anymore....but you are right....I don't think what Dmiller suggested is what was stated at all in the post.
I agree it's not all about Nokia anymore...they have managed to turn other things into problems now as well. Hoping the court doesn't make some BS ruling on the CAFC and comes out very soon and then I believe things will turn back around.
In my opinion it's the market makers gouging that much more out of each trade.
Could be 2 judges ruling the "wrong way" and one judge figting hard to get the right outcome and the others not budging until the other one gets bored and gives up....or vice versa that? Is that a possibility?
I don't remember any guarantees...that definitely doesn't sound like Jim.
based on it being up exactly what it's down today and no news i'm guessing it's a mistake
I meant it lighthearted....I think quite a few of us on this board are obsessed with this one. I really was just looking for your opinion on who you thought deserved to win...because I know quite a few hear thought it was a slam dunk...I like to hear from people with different opinions. I know a lot of people think we should win...or if we lose that the system is just fixed to help out those with big $ in lobbyists etc....however I am not looking for what you thought on who will win...rather in your opinion who deserves to win based on the "evidence". Also, why don't you make a full post instead of .3 of a post once a day?
I don't think it's fair to say your not obsessed with it...you post a lot even when you don't own shares.... ;/
you haven't read any of the briefs or listened to the orals?
Dmiller...who do you think is just in the CAFC case. I'm not asking who you think will win..I am asking based upon the files and arguements...what decision do you think would be just.
Huge difference between wanting it to be apple and thinking it is a fact that it is.
I too have always been of that opinion until Mpartners report today. It boggles me that the deal really would be for such a low level figure for such a long time. I have seen some people post who could have seen apple doing so well in the phone space and my answer to that is EVERYONE. There were online forums of people talking about the phone LONG before its release and it was a huge buzz on the internet long before it's release. That alone led me to believe there had to be more to the contract. It's very frustrating not knowing more about it and not seeing the bottom line getting hit with good #s from the sales of what looks to be the top selling in smartphones.
APAC means Asia / Pacific if it hasn't already been answered.
Like everyone else I don't know for sure...but common sense really tells me that if they say "probably not Apple" I can't see that being they really mean they think it is Apple. I too am baffled as to who it is...maybe their interpretation of "long standing" is what is confusing.
I believe they are saying they believe investors will have to wait until 2014 to get Apple as a per unit liscensee. That's the way I read it.
I'm sure that is possible...but I think we should be prepared for this to be the truth and pleasantly surprised if he is wrong.
I'm sure they can't say that someone on the inside told them.