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.
Goblue, still as dense as ever I see. You accuse me of lying but that is something I've never done on a message board. You are trying to portray a wrong prediction as a lie. The truth of my post still stands. I never said my 100's of predictions had an absolutely accurate record, no one can claim that! At least my accuracy is much better than most of the professionals.
Are you stupid or just pretending?
Once
Now I've heard it all!
According to parq there is an reasonable offer on the table from Ericy. All IDCC has to do is accept that offer.
Bwahahahahahaaaaaa! Is this the same Parq that used to go by Corpgold and previously as Darrell Smith and Darrell Smyth? Historically he is almost always wrong. I don't believe he is an engineer either, if he is one, he's not a very talanted one.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious there would be an offer on the table, almost all nusiance lawsuits draw an offer it's just a matter of what the amount is. In this case "reasonable" is highly subjective so this is one of the rare cases when I actually believe what Corpbold pronounces.
Once
I must disagree:
Tuesday greed was the primary emotion at play. Today, judging by the almost frenetic "chicken little" posting taking place here, fear is the primary emotion.
You are right about Tuesdays greed. However, I would say today rationality is trying to predominate, not fear. Bill, you always look on the bright side and the history of your posts will show that you are always very bullish on IDCC, even when the price is topping out. Some things never change.
I, on the otherhand, am not afraid to admit a good play when I see it and have recommended IDCC near the bottom on numerous occasions, even purchasing some myself for a short-term play now and again. But in the mid-teens there's a lot of bottomside risk over the next few months (and years).
Once
Once
Ams13sag, your post is a real wake-up call to those who have bought the IDCC dream story but your conclusion doesn't really jibe with the list of facts you presented:
It is time for the current management to be shown the door. Stand up and be counted at the next AGM, do not listen to the dream merchants anymore, lets get this company up on the auction block and see what we can get for the company. The current management do not have what it takes to turn the valuable assets it has into profit.
How can you blame it all on management?Judging by all the knowledgable talent that left IDCC after the MOT trial, did you ever stop to consider that maybe the assets of IDCC are not all they are cracked up to be? Seems to me that IDCC's current management may be just a bunch of lawyer stooges who have decided they can make nice living by using their lawyer skills (smoke and mirrors) to put on a dog and pony show and create some value for themselves where there is little to none without the smoke and mirrors.
I keep wondering when the ever gullible IDCC investors will realize this. Really, 10 years for a simple IPR trial. Think about it, the very notion that it takes that long is ridiculous. None of the other tech companies take 10 years to get their case to trial! This is just sneaky lawyering by the IDCC stooge lawyers. Don't you get it? They don't want this to go to trial, EVER, because they are not looking forward to the outcome! How much clearer can it get?
Once
Loop, you bring up some good points about licensing. The strength of a companies IPR can best be measured by how compelled other manufacturers are to license with that company. There is not one major (or minor for that matter) CDMA manufacturer that has failed to sign a royalty bearing CDMA license agreement with Qualcomm. IDC cannot say that about ANY cellular standard. Please don't say IDCC is waiting to settle the 10 year old ericson case before they sign up any more for 3G because that is about old technology.
10 years to settle a case? Even the qcom/ericson case was settled years ago. why cant idcc settle with them now instead of prolonging it? I think they are afraid to try the case because its all they have left.
Once
If thats your way of insulting me then i would like to prove to you that i am the genuine onceinalifetime. How can i prove that to you? You will learn over time that im no imposter. I have never liked IDC's prospects long-term, I make no bones about that. What's telling is the personal insult and character assasination that the longs here feel the need to heap on those who happen to have a different opinion. It's just another stock for cryin' out loud! It's not your mother! It's not even your puppy! It's just another company trying to break into the big leagues. They're a dime a dozen and ussually fail miserably.
What's worse than IDC's chances is the constant hyping and pumping that some longs do to try to suck others into their unwise investment. You can bet that if I wasn't here holding the hypesters to the facts, keeping the speculation from being presented as fact and generally correcting the record, they would have sucked many more unsuspecting beginners into their trap.
Remember, an investment is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it and all the longs here are dreaming of the day they can exit for a profit, a day that for many will probably never come.
Hey, does anyone have a spare calculator with a lot of digits? How about a new engine and transmission for my cell-phone? Mine's not quite working right, I guess that's because it doesn't have IDC inside, LOL!
If it's wireless, it's IDC, LOL!
Once
Of course i'm the real once. SOme things cant be faked but some can be - For example look at the current lisencing system.
With the available information it looks much more likely than not that IDCC is not going to have success licensing all the major manufacturers with agreements that require substantial recurring royalties. This is evident in the backwards way they went about about licensing Nokia and Matsushita (Panasonic). Nokia doesn't have to pay unless the other unlicensed majors change their mind and decide they should pay. Panasonic only has to pay if IDCC gets new patents approved in Japan that are infringed. What about all of IDC's existing Japanese patents? I guess IDCC decided those weren't essential as long as Panasonic would sign a much needed license agreeing to pay if their products infringed yet to be issued patents. As far as we know there's not even a royalty rate agreed upon. For all practical purposes, these license agreements appear to be a sham designed to continue to encourage investors to buy into the IDC story.
For years the hypesters have been saying the Ericsson lawsuit will settle 2G and 3G issues but any fool can see the case is only covering alleged infringement of 2G. 3G has nothing to do with it. Any investor would be foolish to not consider the odds that IDC is up against when it comes to licensing the majors in any meaningful way.
once
I am not a short but it looks like IDCC is in the "falling knife" phase again. The IDC bulls like to blame this on some mysterious seller or, alternatively, the "shorts". The actual fact is there just isn't much demand for IDC stock at these prices. It's not because the story hasn't been yelled from mountain tops or screamed to anyone willing to listen by enthusiastic shareholders, no, it's because there is simply no evidence that IDCC's patents are as valuable and essential as represented. IDC bulls take it for granted that IDC's patents are central to current and future wireless networks, professional analysts want confirmation from IDC's peers, confirmation that, in my opinion, is likely to never come.
Manufacturers will be hesitant to give much to the patenting parasites of the telecom world, those who patent lots of little concepts and crevices without actually inventing anything new or useful. Is it any wonder that the company with the most patents collects the least in royalties? I've been explaining for years how the value of patents is not based on numbers of patents but on the usefulness and strength of those patents. It's a simple concept but one that many fail to get their arms around. It's really no wonder that IDC has such difficulty signing up meaningful licensees. Unless that changes, IDC stock will never be the rocket to the stars that so many hope for.
Once
people thought I had left for good but i didnt i'm still right here in seattle waiting for it to stop raining. haha
when will idcc finnish this trial?
once
rockitt, you challanged my disertation that they were not accruing the the Nokia royalties on the books. How could they if there isnt a rate set? Nobody said they didn't claim to accrue them, just not on the books where they would be visable!
No dah!
once
Look at the Motorolla-idcc decisun. The deliberations were centered around the use of "toll quality" in one of IDCC's patents, there was some disagreement between Motorola's expert witnesses and IDC's witness regarding the exact meaning of "toll quality". The jury question was trying to pin down the difference in sound quality and distinguish which expert had presented the most believable definition of "toll-quality" in relation to land-line phones and wireless phones. It had nothing to do with not knowing what a cell-phone was but IDC hypesters have been portraying this jury question for years as evidence that the jury didn't have a clue, when in fact, it was a reasonable question given the conflicting testimony at the trial. Use your head, do you really believe the hypesters version of events that portrays a 1995 jury as not knowing what a cell-phone is, of course not! That's just a revisionist's version of how IDC lost to Motorola! Don't get suckered into that trap, Motorola won the patent infringement suit, the judge upheld the verdict on all counts with the exception of two of 24 which he over-turned on a technicality. IDC appealed that verdict and another judge, two years later, upheld the decision on all counts except for 3 which he overturned on technicalities. He ruled on the remaining counts he could discern no error of judgement.
So don't be fooled by those who would like you to believe a grave injustice was done and the jury was comprised of fools who didn't even know what a cell phone was, this was 1995 after all. The proof is that two separate judges upheld the jury decision on almost all counts and Motorola was vindicated fair and square. It's all there in the record for anyone with the time and inclination to look it up. You can read about it here:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/july97/96-1408.html
Once
Sorry bub, without an accepted rate the Nokia royalties cant accrue on anybodys books, read the post man, read the managements own words, they will not book the revenues until they have an agreed rate. How could they?
once
Jury, blurry, IDCC already lost their TDMA battle with Motorola, never mind that the hypesters claim it was due to a faulty jury decision because the record does not make that distinction, the net effect is the same, they lost.
Do not forget this important fact: The current Ericy/IDCC lawsuit was filed long before the IDCC lost to Motorola. That indicates to me that many of the infringement claims in the current litigation are the same ones already tried in the failed Motorola case, just dressed up in new clothes. Remember, there's not a whole lot of difference between a Motorola TDMA phone and an Ericsson TDMA phone, they both have to work on the same network.
This raises some interesting questions. If IDC were to prevail in the Ericy litigation, how would Motorola respond? They already have a court ruling establishing their TDMA products do not infringe IDC patents. If Motorola doesn't pay, why should the rest of the manufacturers be put at a competitive disadvantage to MOT by paying?
All this highlights one other much over-looked fact: The current Ericy/IDCC litigation will not determine 3G royalties! The hypesters would have you believe otherwise. However, 3G networks will use predominately WCDMA/CDMA2000 standards but the Ericy/IDC litigation is over 2G TDMA technologies. The hypesters do not want this important fact brought to light but it is important that it is. Imagine how surprised IDC investors would be if the trial goes forward, IDC prevails and yet the manufacturers still refuse to recognize patents that IDC claims is essential for 3G standards!
Even more disastrous, what if the trial goes forward and IDC loses! How much do you think IDC shares would be worth when the market opened the following morning? That's right, you would probably have a hard time finding anyone willing to pay two or three bucks a share, if that. The current value of IDC is largely based upon claims of management; if those claims are discovered to be wrong..... look out below. And remember, IDC's claims are always preceded by "we believe". That means as long as the lawyers at IDC have some argument that hasn't been ruled upon yet, they can claim that they "believe". That is what I'm referring to when I say IDC is a risky investment.
The hypesters have been very adamant that things are going IDC's way in the current litigation and yet just about every new happening is filed in a completely sealed area, unavailable to the public. If the last 50 sealed documents were turning the tide in favor of Ericy, do you really think we would know about it? It's not as if IDC management has been giving us play-by-play reports. About all we have heard was that the special master's report did not completely blow apart all of IDC's claims, that management still thinks they have a chance. Of course they would think that, their job is to represent IDC's interests to the very end. Can you imagine them saying "well, new information has come to light which will make it extremely difficult for us to prevail, but we're going to try". Of course not, they are bound to represent IDC's interests vigorously to the very end. Have you ever heard a prosecutor say, "Well, there's not much evidence against the accused and we don't think we stand a very good chance of winning, but we're going to give it a shot"? Of course not! They always say, "We believe the evidence will show the accused committed the crime" and they say this at the same time the defense is saying, "We believe the evidence will show our client is innocent of the crimes charged". This is no different from the comments we have heard from management to date. Therefore, to those who claim things are going in IDC's favor, I say maybe that is because you are only listening to those with favorable things to say!
Anyone who claims to know the outcome of this case without going through the painstakingly laborious process of dissecting and analyzing each claim one by one is simply fooling themselves. Certainly most here would like to believe IDC will prevail with excellence but I do not see any evidence that would support such a conclusion. Of course, if you want to see something badly enough, you will see it. Look at the recent claims that Ericsson is setting aside billions to resolve this case. Closer inspection reveals that is not what the money is for at all, it's just what the hypesters want to believe. If there was billions at stake here I would certainly expect Ericsson management to disclose this to their shareholders but nary a word!
Even more at stake in this trial than their specific TDMA claims is IDCC's credibility. They have already been knocked down and dirtied by Motorola, to the point they are having a difficult time getting most of the other manufacturers to take them seriously, anything but a complete victory here will leave them in the bottom of the scrap heap.
Those who like to live dangerously should take a very large stake in the company and hope IDC is right and everyone else is wrong. At least if you lose you will have a lot of company, right here on ihub. There has been a lot of preparation for the "Houston $100" but intuition tells me it may be wise to plan for the opposite. Maybe some of the more generous participants could prepare a soothing clinic with specially trained "listeners" on hand to deal with the broken hopes and dreams of those who lost their life savings and feel betrayed by those who painted a much rosier scenario. It could be called "contingency plan 1.01" We do not need anyone going "postal" if things don't turn out as planned.
Of course it is not nearly as fun to think of these depressing scenarios, much better to just look the other way and hope for the best?
Once
Yes, but look what happened in the Motorola case. There were more IDC patent claims eliminated in the Motorola trial than in any other challenge combined. In 1993, Motorola sued IDC for a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of six of IDC’s patents. IDC counter-sued Motorola for infringement of these same patents in Motorola's cellular systems (United States Digital Cellular (USDC); Japanese Digital Cellular (JDC); Groupe Special Mobile (GSM); and Mobile Integrated Radio System (MIRS)).
Before the trial even began, IDC withdrew its claim that Motorola infringed two of the six patents and narrowed its claims to twenty-four in the four remaining patents.
In a 26 page verdict, the jury found all 24 patent claims of the four patents invalid, mostly due to evidence that others had practiced the patented techniques before IDC even applied for the patents and therefore no infringement had occurred. IDC appealed the findings claiming that not enough evidence had been presented for the jury to make a determination on any of the patent claims. The Judge determined there was sufficient evidence presented to invalidate 21 of IDC's 24 patent claims but that Motorola did not present sufficient evidence to invalidate 3 of the 24 claims.
IDC appealed that ruling and two years later a different judge overturned the invalidation of 2 additional claims but found no error in the decision on the remaining 19 of 24 of IDC's patent claims that were ruled invalid. It is important to note that the 5 remaining claims were not judged valid, just that Motorola had failed to prove that they were invalid. If any of these 5 claims are involved in the Ericy litigation, Ericsson has every right to submit additional evidence of prior art, evidence that Motorola failed to exhibit, in their effort to prove IDC was not the first to use these techniques.
Sometimes a patent challenge does not end in a narrowing of claims but the result is similar. For example, in 1994 Qualcomm sued IDC requesting the invalidation of 5 patents that IDC asserted were being infringed by Qualcomm's CDMA products that had just begun to be commercialized. IDC counter-sued and claimed infringement damages of $190 million dollars. In the end, Qualcomm settled with IDC $5.5 million (which Qualcomm estimated was about $2 million less than it would cost them to take the trial to conclusion). In return, Qualcomm was granted the right to sub-license these 5 IDC patents and any continuations or additions to these 5 patents to their CDMA customers without any further payment to Interdigital. Even assuming that these patents are not valid or essential to CDMA networks, the settlement adds a certain amount of value to Qualcomm's patent licensing division because it means that IDC cannot assert infringement for these patents against any Qualcomm licensee. So those who license CDMA from Qualcomm also get a free pass to market CDMA systems without fear of a nuisance lawsuit from IDC involving the 5 patents that IDC claimed were essential to Qualcomm's CDMA systems. While the patents were not narrowed or ruled invalid, the net effect is almost the same. Had IDC refused the settlement offer, I'm confident those IDC patents would have been declared invalid, otherwise why would IDC have negotiated such a settlement, $5 million and no chance to collect on the future sales instead of a claimed $190 million in current damages and a piece of the pie on all future CDMA sales? The only reasonable explanation is that IDC knew their patents would not stand up to the scrutiny of a patent challenge.
There is also the case where IDC requests the reexamination of particular patents by the patent office that originally issued the patents. For example, in 1997 IDC did just that for 3 of their own patents comprising 28 claims. The patent office informed IDC it could confirm the patentability of 24 of the claims in their original form but 4 claims were only approved once they were narrowed in scope. In patent law, even a seemingly inconsequential change in wording can have severe consequences. Keep in mind that under the scrutiny of a patent infringement lawsuit, there would certainly be much more prior art presented than the patent examiner could hope to uncover and even these re-affirmed patent claims could be found to have been issued in error. The patent office cannot guarantee that their search for prior art was sufficient to turn up all known prior art.
Finally, even if a particular patent stands up to all scrutiny for validity, there is no guarantee that it will be found to be infringed upon or essential in any product. These are the pitfalls of a company hoping to make it as a purveyor of IPR and why you will find few to no examples of large companies who receive over half of their revenue as royalty payments.
Once
The hypesters tried to spin the Nokia agreement as if Nokia was taking them under their wing and validating the strength of their patents but that spin doesn't pass the rationality test. Heck, Nokia and IDC can't even agree upon a royalty rate, the technology development agreement could be more accurately viewed as "wireless engineers for hire". It happened at a time that Nokia found themselves under-staffed with college educated engineers and IDC just happened to have a bunch available after their failed B-CDMA project. A perfect match. Now that the relationship has ended they still haven't paid up or even agreed upon a royalty rate.
It would be nice if everything was as rosey and predictable as the hypesters portray, that would truly be a dream investment. Unfortunately, things are not so certain. They overlook IDC's repeated failures to achieve their goals, constant failure if you will. How else can we judge their likelihood for success if we don't use past performance as a baseline? Also, look at the reluctance for the majors to license their technology, I think they know IDC patents don't stand up to scrutiny. Oh yes, the hypesters will tell you they have numerous patents that have been revalidated but then they fail to acknowledge that revalidation of patents has nothing to do with whether the patents are necessary to any particular wireless standard. They act as if revalidation means those patents are valuable or necessary, neither of which is true, completely separate issues.
After seeing all the bull that has come from the hypesters keyboards a thinking man would run, not walk, away from the idea that IDCC is a wireless leader!
Once
Just don't under-estimate the importance of the Ericy case. Sure, it's only for TDMA and it's only for the US but IDCC's future licensing ability depends upon a favorable settlement of the 2G Ericy case. Assuming that IDCC's wideband CDMA patents are valid and essential, they will still need credibility to license them. If it turns out that IDCC has been crying infringement all these years and the TDMA patents weren't even essential, more doubt will be cast on any 3G CDMA claims they make. Manufacturers will figure it's better to to just ignore them than to pay excessive royalties.
I'm sceptical of IDCC's ability to extract more than $100 million from Ericy because of the length of time this trial has been going on. It looks to me like IDCC is delaying the process, almost as if they know the settlement will not be all it's cracked up to be and they want to try to get some 3G licenses signed up before the news is out. Why else would it take over 9 years?
Once
tarheelcpa, we have already established that the Nokia royalties will not accrue on IDCC's books or be paid by Nokia unless and until a royalty rate is established. That's right from the companies mouth during a conference call last year. So it's impossible for any royalties to be paid until such time. There is no guarantee the rate will be high enough to even be meaningful in the context of the royalties that are rapidly drying up and we don't know when the rate will be established and therefore allow any royalty stream to begin. I thought you knew this already. It could be years!
Anything else is just fluff!
once
Nope...Nokia agreement has no royalty set! What kind of agreement is that?
once
We know that IDC's legal expenses were over 4 million with qcom in '94, that means the net gain was around a million dollars. If IDC really had essential IPR (for IS-95 or CDMA2000) don't you think they should have licensed it so they could receive recurring royalties? I still think it was IPR blackmail, Q paid to avoid a lengthy suit.
Why would IDC settle for barely more than their legal expenses if they really had essential IS-95 or CDMA2000 patents? If their patents were essential, IDC sure blew that one.
Of course no one knows how the Ericy trial will end but what makes you think it won't end the same way?
Once
The Ericy case is about TDMA technology which is not as efficient as CDMA. A win here would give IDC some much needed credibility, a loss would devastate IDC and their credibility. A settlement is much more probable than a win. The reaction to the settlement will depend upon how favorable it is to IDC.
My best guess is Ericy will throw IDC a bone and life will go on. In any case, TDMA will be a shrinking technology when networks are upgraded to 3G. The market does not value shrinking royalty streams very highly so I don't put much value on a TDMA royalty stream even if IDC wins the Ericy suit.
If IDC is to have a positive future, it will need to make sure it's CDMA patents are incorporated into 3G standards that are actually deployed. That could take years and Qualcomm has a much broader CDMA patent portfolio than IDC does and is willing to bundle it all into one pakage for one price. This reduces the incentive for manufactures to "cherry pick" IDC's patents. Nevermind the impressive numbers of patents that IDC management bandies about, the proof will be in the licensing.
I have seen "no-brainers" before but, IMHO, IDC is not one of them, it is highly speculative. I hope this clears up my position for you somewhat.
once
IDC buyback only below $10/share. If this company is worth as much as the hypsters say, why would IDC refuse to buy shares over $10? Maybe they're smarter than I think.
Once
I sincerely hope IDC prevails in this case but I think IDC's chance at a complete win are slim to none partly because of the amount of time IDC waited to make their IPR claims. GSM and TDMA standards were being hashed out in 1990. If IDC had significant IPR I would have expected IDC to step forward and make their IPR claims known at that point. If royalty agreements were not reached pronto, the lawsuits should have been flying well before 1995. Additionally, IDC has a very poor record when it comes to lawsuits. Yes, this is a different lawsuit, anything could happen, I just don't want to risk my capital on such a risky case.
However, my negativity stems not so much from a low chance of prevailing, but because a win will not be that great long-term. TDMA/GSM are dying standards. Within a year the royalties will be shrinking, not expanding. That will cause the street to value these revenues as temporal, not nearly as valuable as a revenue stream that is ever expanding. It's the difference between night and day.
Once
I have to disagree with you on this one:
"It is not enough to rule out literal infringement. It is also necessary to determine equivalency. Equivalency can only be resolved by a careful analysis of the file history of the patent application. Such analysis should always be made when an accused structure or process resembles in any way a claim of a patent."
Think about it. IDC has been claiming 2G IPR for the last 10 years, 3G IPR for the last 3 years. If their 2G claims turn out to be not much more than a bunch of hot air, how much do you think their 3G claims will be valued at? IDC is in a very tenuous position.
Once their story begins to unravel, it won't stop at 2G. There is no magic dividing line between 2G and 3G, that's just helpful terminology.
Make no mistake, anyone invested in IDC is very dependent upon a successful conclusion to the Ericy dispute. Anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand.
Once
sjratty, great post, I'm glad to see there's at least one astute investor that hasn't been blind-sided by the mumbo-jumbo. I must admit though, one comment did throw me:
"Further, IDCC's expert, in describing the patent, testified "Yes, I would say in this language that it is describing a single base station system."
Hmmmm.....In the world of stocks and other investments, that sounds like a BIG negative.
But I understand the very real need to couch any opinions in the most favorable light lest you be ravaged by the wild wolf pack.
Anyway, nice post.
Once
You have made some very fine points about the true cost of options. imho, the problem is not a few options here and a few options there. no. the problem is excessive options and that is IDCCs problem. IDCC has completely excessive options compared to almost any other company in the known universe. not good for future value.
once
dish, i am the original once but a idiot fughead beat me to my old name onceinalifetime from rb so now i am 0nceinalifetime with a zero. if i could prove it to you i would but there is no way I can do that so you will just half to believe me.
0nce
Who said anything about you're leg?
Once
I hope we all get off to a better start this time around!
Now let's get down to the real nuts and bolts of this company!
Once