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.
Additionally, IDT agreed not to initiate patent infringement claims against Nokia prior to January 1, 2007.
How utterly bizarre. If IDCC never settled, then the 2G/3G license would have expired on January 1, 2007 and then they could have sued.
So they settled for the same terms that they would have had if they didn't settle.
And no webcast.
Well IDCC didn't even want to risk "someone else's" patents (Tantivy) in a trial, so I'm not sure they'll want to risk their own in a trial.
US Patent Office to allow Internet users to help approve or reject patents:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500628.html
Pretty sure this wasn't posted before:
several sources are now reporting Interdigital as a buyout target.
I only see the one thestreet.com article. What others are there?
8-K out regarding Fagan. eom
Wow, stock reaction indicates a lot of people didn't like the man.
NOK is trying to prove the inessentiality of IDCC's patents in this case. IDCC does not want that to happen.
Any significance to the stock being up 72 cents in AH?
Judge Karas has an overloaded docket. Who knows when.
Institutional holdings can't keep going up without the stock price going up, or can they?
I thought NOK is the one who wants the case to move quickly, but IDCC does not.
Check out the Pauley comments, probably posted by NOK attorneys, LOL!
By now NOK is probably hoping that the judge grants IDCC's motion to dismiss.
"275. Interdigital possessed a reasonable probability of contractual relations with third parties with respect to 3G technology with which Nokia interfered."
"276. Nokia's interference was purposeful and intended to harm such relations or prevent such relations from occurring."
Sounds like many of the manufacturers ARE holding off on signing because of NOK.
I think the DE case started in Jan '05, so let's say $5 million per quarter on average. 8 quarters so far = $40 million, and treble that would be $120 million. Not bad.
loop: Exactly what kind of punitive damages can the judge impose against NOK? If it is just attorney's fees, then that is just a slap on the wrist. Treble that and it's just 3 slaps on the wrist.
olddog: Is NEC our only licensee with an MFL clause?
How could they project 53-55 million in 1st quarter if they thought this was a major issue?
Hold on guys... When IDCC gave guidance for 53-55 million for the 1st quarter, that is actually for 4th quarter handset sales. NEC did not bring up this MFL issue until some time this quarter. So we won't know until IDCC gives guidance for their 2nd quarter revenue if they think NEC will stop paying or not.
Could that be why we dropped today? Did someone know something.
And Inventec must have been part of that $2.4 million. No 8-K... I must have misunderstood the definition of "material."
In fourth quarter 2006, ITC and Sharp entered into an Amendment which extended the term of the PHS/PDC patent license agreement from April 2008 to April 2011. ITC’s PHS/PDC patent license agreement with Sharp is worldwide, non-exclusive, generally nontransferable, royalty-bearing, and convenience-based, covering sales of terminal devices compliant with TDMA-based PHS and PDC Standards.
In fourth quarter 2006, we entered into non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing, convenience-based, patent license agreements with Inventec Appliances Corp. (Inventec) covering the sale of terminal units and infrastructure compliant with 2G, 2.5G, and 3G Standards by Inventec and all of its Taiwanese subsidiaries.
10-K out. eom
Anyone know if it was actually a brand new lawsuit in the UK, or just counterclaims in the current UK case?
Tom Carpenter should have asked Bill if the judge is waiting on an arb decision before having the hearing.
But our 35% of the market will shrink as the larger manufacturers start selling more 3G phones, so we will probably need to sign an additional 20-25% market share to reach the 50% goal.
This is from the August 16, 2006 8-K:
The time-based RSUs, which were scheduled to vest on January 1, 2008, were
exchanged for RSUs that will vest, if at all, on January 15, 2008 based on the
attainment of pre-determined performance goals involving the completion of 3G
agreements having certain values and benefits to the Company. If less than 80%
performance of the target goal is achieved, participants will receive no payout.
If performance meets or exceeds 150% of the target goal, the payout will be
three times the number of RSUs exchanged. The remaining 50% of the time-based
vesting RSUs which were previously granted to the persons identified above under
the Company's Long Term Compensation Program remain unchanged.
I think the target goal is 50%.
I'm not so sure about that.
If 50% is the 150% goal, then that means 33.3% is the 100% goal, and 26.6% is the 80% goal.
Their plan also included an 80% reward and 150% reward. Hope they can get 75% of the 3G market so they can get the 150% reward!
Also nice to see them spell out their goals for this year. Their goal is to license 50% of the 3G market this year.
Notice how when Santosh asked about confidence regarding a Tier-1 license, Merritt specifically talked about SAM and NOK. He also gave good detail about SAM and NOK earlier in the call. Given the amount of hatred SAM and NOK have for us, would Merritt have talked about them so openly and freely if 3G deals with both were not imminent?
IDCC held up really well today. Based on the percentage drop of the Nasdaq and IDCC's beta, IDCC should have dropped 11.07% today.
Wait, I thought the institutions were supposed to be "stronger hands."
What about GS? Are they buying with both hands?
Shouldn't IDCC be buying with both hands at this point?
In one of the recent investor conferences, Merritt said 34 is cheap and IDCC will buy back shares at this price. Therefore we should not see IDCC drop below current levels.
I thought IDCC will not get paid on 2G IFX chips, but will get paid on 3G IFX chips.
People are hoping that former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson can get China to allow their currency to rise.
If he has that power, then he also should have the power to force Nokia (and Samsung and S-E) to sign a 3G license with IDCC.
How about IDCC hire some powerful lobbyists to make this a priority issue of Paulson's? Surely he would like to do a favor for his old GS buddies?