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.
mickeybritt: I Think the 6 insiders were granted nearly 180,000 shares and disposed of 102,000 to pay taxes, thus resulting in their NET receipt of shares totaling roughly 76,000 shares. But someone should check my numbers.
Not a bad *pay"day as the saying goes.
JimLur: you said
hrbart: Did you sell BEFORE or AFTER the drop?
I just knew it was coming. I anticipated an $8-$10 drop; but they hit it harder. I just can't seem to get up the guts to sell (and pay the taxes) and move on.
I am still hoping that there is a buyout by some GOOD company with a strong stock price and the buyout is in the form of a stock swap.
Fundamentally, the future looks good for the company, with no bad news on the horizon. Any deals with ZTE, LG, or the other holdouts will only pust the price back up over the $100 level. Any past revenues are gravy and new licenses are the meat of the things.
Here's hoping for ZTE, LG, and then a buy out.
JMO
InterDigital, Inc. : IDCC-US: Dividend Analysis : January 11th, 2017 (record date) : By the numbers : March 3, 2017
March 3, 2017 by CapitalCube
http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/interdigital-inc-idcc-us-dividend-analysis-january-11th-2017-record-date-by-the-numbers-march-3-2017/
Our analysis is based on comparing InterDigital, Inc. with the following peers – BlackBerry Limited, QuickLogic Corporation, Sony Corporation Sponsored ADR, Intel Corporation, Oclaro, Inc., Xilinx, Inc., Apple Inc. and LM Ericsson Telefon AB Sponsored ADR Class B (BBRY-US, QUIK-US, SNE-US, INTC-US, OCLR-US, XLNX-US, AAPL-US and ERIC-US).
InterDigital, Inc.’s dividend yield is 1.20 percent and its dividend payout is 11.39 percent. This compares to a peer average dividend yield of 1.93 percent and a payout level of 26.71 percent. This relatively lagging dividend performance could spur some dividend action going forward – except the company’s current dividend quality score of 58 out of a possible score of 100 is only about average.
Dividend Quality Overview
Over the last twelve months (prior to December 31, 2016), IDCC-US paid a low quality dividend, which represents a yield of 1.20% at the current price.
Dividend quality trend has not been consistent over the last five years. Dividends were paid during each of these years — of these 3 were high quality, 1 was medium quality and 1 was low quality.
The ending cash balance, with a dividend coverage of 30.60x, provides a substantial cushion in case of a significant reduction of cash flows in the future.
Dividend Coverage
Over the last twelve months (prior to December 31, 2016), IDCC-US paid a low quality dividend.
The source of the company’s cash to support the dividend paid over the last twelve months is operating cash flow (coverage of 13.84x), investing cash flow (coverage of -6.82x), issuance cash flow (coverage of -9.43x) and twelve-month prior cash (coverage of 29.99x), for a total dividend coverage of 31.60x.
IDCC-US‘s issuance cash flow includes outflows from net debt repayment (coverage of -7.39x) and net share buybacks (coverage of -2.06x). Thus, the total coverage including share buybacks is 33.66x, which reflects our assumption that the cash paid for share buybacks is discretionary and could instead be used to pay dividends.
Dividend Coverage by Cash Flow (TTM)
These coverage ratio factors imply that the firm had to dip into the beginning cash balance to pay the dividend, which suggests a low dividend quality.
(SEE ARTICLE LINK ABOVE FOR CHARTS AND GRAPHS)
Hope Intel mazkes its move this weekend. Get us above $100 to around $125-$140 and most of us will be very happy.
JMO
loophole: you said
loophole73: I would agree with some of your points but remember: This is our IDCC -- they report ONLY WHAT IS REQUIRED and no more.
1. Terms of license agreements are kept secret.
2. Every time they make a statement about the company's potential, th it bites them in the Arse (ie: Engine & transmission, calculator with lots of zero's, etc.)
3. Their income and revenue projections going out 5 years are revised and not achieved (ie: ...5 year revenues of $800,000 which is now at $400,000 and beyond the 5 year period).
4. Past revenues on infringers is good ONLY if you get both sides of the amount (ie: We think you owe us X but they think they owe us Z [and z being little or nothing]) and is only good IF and WHEN collected. Nokia/Microsoft IMO is a dead issue and ANY monies collected would be a true windfall which we would be lucky and grateful to receive.
While I doubt that they will meet to set out their 'unknown' revenue streams, if they did do this, I would add one other requisite:
A statement that salaries, bonuses, raises, incentives, perks, etc. for upper management while they may be accrued,THEY WOULD NOT BE PAID OUT UNTIL ALL EXPECTATIONS ARE MET WITHIN A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME (SAY 3 YEARS). Otherwise, all accruals would be reversed.
This is a big challenge but it would be a way for management to. PUT THEIR (FUTURE) MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS!
And as proof that they can and will reach those benchmarks, they should declare a respectable special dividend NOW ($2 to $5 per shasre). The tradeoff here is if they achieve the goals, the revenues would have put the money back in the bank; if they fail, the reversal of perks accruals would be a one-time 'pop' to income. .
jmo
power11: you said [color=red BUY IN TODAY BETWEEN 85.5 AND 86 AND BY THE END OF THE DAY WE WILL BE CLOSING ABOVE 90][/color]
W R O N G ! ! !
nice day to declare a special dividend
Absolutely the best thing that the BOD could do at this juncture. It would show the street and all how confident the BOD is with the future of IDCC.
Besides, what else would they do with the excess cash? ? ?
LET'S JUST DO IT ! ! ! !
JMO
Hope there is no severe storms or power outages anticipated during the conference call!
amrwonderful: You can't look at it that way!
One time 'POPS' (or hits) cannot be included in future prices. If we got a settlement from MSFT/NOK of $ 1 Billion, we could never match any projections using your formula on a goiung-forward basis.
On the other hand, if the new licenses spelled out some more datails, analysts could get a better handle on future earnings.
FOR EXAMPLE: If the press release for Huawei and Apple stated something like '....we anticipate that the license will generate $x.xx million per quarter in future revenues as a base, over the next 'x' quarters ....."
and ".....payment of past royalties of $x.xx million >>>>'
That would make life more simple ang give the Street something to accurately project future revenues.
JMO
THIS SAYS IT ALL
FROM SEEKING ALPHA:
InterDigital beats by $0.01, beats on revenue
Feb. 23, 2017 8:31 AM ET|By: Jignesh Mehta, SA News Editor
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC): Q4 EPS of $3.85 beats by $0.01.
Revenue of $273.9M (+144.3% Y/Y) beats by $11.33M.
Is It Too Late to Buy InterDigital Stock?
InterDigital had big returns last year, and some investors might be tempted to try and jump in after the fact. Here are some points for investors to consider.
Nicholas Rossolillo (nrossolillo) Feb 21, 2017 at 7:21PM
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) has had a monster year. In the last 12 months, its stock has more than doubled in value. Worried you missed the boat?
Even with shares pushing through to fresh highs, it's possible you haven't. Here's what happened in the last year and what the company has in the works.
The past year in review
2016 got off to a rocky start for U.S. stocks overall, but it was off to the races for InterDigital. The company made it a goal this past year to make its revenue more consistent and to control tax and litigation expenses.
Efforts were successful on those fronts, with new multiyear deals with current licensee clients inked, year-over-year legal costs reduced, and a tax benefit from amending previous results getting added back. The result was strong revenue growth, with much of that increase getting funneled directly to the bottom line.
Here is a timeline of some of the big announcements in the last six months that led to the company's great year:
Aug. 17, 2016: IDCC signs expanded patent license agreement with Sharp Corporation to cover 4G technology.
Sept. 6, 2016: Huawei signs a multiyear license agreement with IDCC for 3G and 4G wireless tech and ongoing joint research.
Sept. 22, 2016: IDCC's board of directors increases the quarterly dividend to $0.30 from the previous $0.20.
Dec. 15, 2016: Apple and IDCC enter a patent license agreement covering Apple's sales of cellular and wireless products.
Dec. 20, 2016: IDCC acquires Hillcrest Labs, which makes sensor processing tech for smart TVs, virtual reality devices, and smartphones.
Jan. 23, 2017: IoT Evolution magazine gives IDCC a 2016 Connected Transportation Award for its work on smart city and transport data collection initiatives.
InterDigital gearing up for another round
The developer and licensor of new tech has received much benefit as of late from work it completed in years past, specifically around its patents on 3G and 4G wireless networks. While this has fueled growth up to this point, the company has had its engineers hard at work on Internet of Things (IoT) and next-generation mobile-network technologies.
The IoT movement has already begun as billions of connected devices, spanning from industrial sensors to consumer electronics, have been sold. However, the trend toward an increasingly connected world is just getting started, with some estimates saying the number of connected things will triple in the next few years. InterDigital was recognized several times last year for its work on technology governing things like connected vehicles and connection-enabling device-development platforms.
Though an increasing number of devices are getting hooked up to the internet, cracks in the foundation have been recognized, specifically around security issues, speed, and reliability of the current iterations of wireless technology like 4G. Enter the next generation in wireless capability, dubbed 5G, which is now being developed and tested for deployment to consumers within the next few years. InterDigital has been working to build solutions for the future network, technology it will be able to patent and license to clients in the future as the IoT movement spreads.
As technology evolves, demand for InterDigital's past work on things like 3G and 4G will eventually dwindle away, so its current work is important to ensure its long-term viability. After the past year's big jump, though, the forward price-to-earnings ratio based on next year's estimates is at 30, implying investors are quite confident in the company's ability to grow.
Are these expectations realistic?
What investors should consider
The patent-licensing business can be volatile. While InterDigital was successful in signing several high-profile multi-year license agreements last year, history has shown that income from patent royalties and licenses can come in fits and starts.
However, as the reach of the internet expands, and connected devices become a larger part of our everyday life, InterDigital stands to benefit. It has already found success in helping design the wireless networks and smartphones we use today, and the company is paving its own runway to profit off of the technology of tomorrow. This is also reflected in analyst expectations of nearly 30% earnings growth for the next five years as this next wave of tech starts to unfold.
After all the hype and positive PR from 2016, I'm personally holding off on making a purchase just yet. I plan on evaluating a purchase again when full-year 2016 financial results come out later this week.
Trump's potential $1.6 trillion investment
We aren't politicos here at The Motley Fool. But we know a great investing opportunity when we see one.
Our analysts spotted what could be a $1.6 trillion opportunity lurking in Donald Trump's infrastructure plans. And given this team's superb track record (more than tripling the market over the past decade*), you don't want to miss what they found.
They've picked 11 stocks poised to profit from Trump's first 100 days as president. History has shown that getting in early on a good idea can often pay big bucks – so don't miss out on this moment.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/21/is-it-too-late-to-buy-interdigital-stock.aspx?source=yahoo-2-news&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=yahoo-2-news
Seems like someone at IBD follows InterDigital.
Some time back, the publication had IDC ranked pretty high on their radar list of good growth stocks with outstanding potential (as I recall).
in any event, we are again reaching to surpass our all time high at the close. Here's hoping we do it.
JMO
7 Stocks With Accelerating, Triple-Digit Earnings Growth
INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY article
MATTHEW GALGANI1:17 PM ET
What does online streaming giant Netflix (NFLX) have in common with chip equipment maker Applied Materials (AMAT)? Both have been posting accelerating earnings and sales growth in recent quarters.
In fact, like InterDigital (IDCC), Brooks Automation (BRKS) and the other top-rated stocks on the list below, Netflix and Applied Materials posted triple-digit EPS growth in their most recently reported quarter.
To make the list, each company also had to have generated at least three straight quarters of accelerating earnings growth and two consecutive quarters of rising revenue gains. Each stock also has to have a daily average trading volume of at least $8 million.
Note that three of the names that made the grade — Applied Materials, Advanced Energy Industries (AEIS) and Brooks Automation — all hail from the same Electronics-Semiconductor Equipment industry group, which currently ranks No. 8 among the 197 groups IBD tracks.
Check The Chart
In addition to a company's fundamentals, such as earnings and sales growth, always also check the chart to determine the right time to invest. Running your stock ideas through a Buying Checklist can help you decide whether to jump in or hold off.
Are you getting the most out of IBD? Our Getting Started Guide can help!
Currently, all of the stocks on this list are extended past a proper buy point, except for InterDigital, which is trading just within a 98.10-103 buy zone. The mobile and wireless technology leader was featured in the IBD Stock Analysis on Feb. 9, just before it broke out on Feb. 13.
http://www.investors.com/research/7-stocks-with-accelerating-triple-digit-earnings-growth/
We could certainly benefit from a new price target of say $120 or more and a Strong Buy rating.
It would certainly provide us with follow-up buying and price appreciation quickly.
JMO
I'm surprised that Barclay's and other Analysts haven't reviewed their price targets in view of the recent rise in the share price.
Could they be waiting for earnings before they adjust their target prices?
I would think that they would be looking at their rating and target and might be preparing a report in the next couple of days.
JMO
Hey Frank (LARANGER) --Hope The Bea and your daughters still hold IDCC. I feel you are smiling down upon us and are helping with this positive momentum.
Best wishes to those faithful on the KAFFEE board.
Keep those O'reeno's coming.
(Miss your commentaries. Wish you were still with us.
eeeee
I know that the 52-week high includes intra-day trading as it did today, reaching a high of $102.05
I, like him, look at the 'CLOSING PRICE HIGH OF $99.10 as a measurement of the share price, even though it traded $2.95 higher than the closing price.
None the less, it was a great day overall!
He meant at the close of trading ($99.10).
Then I hope QCOM is a CASH deal. Don't want their satock at this time because of the uncertainties.
(I do own a token 285 shares at this time.
Hey DataRox, where are you? ? ?
Which will it be ?
QCOM
APPL
INTC
SAMSUNG
CISCO
????
I hope it is Apple -- at least they are on firm ground and flying high.
Unless it is a buyout at $150 or more! ! !
hrbart: Let's change the location from Houston to VEGAS ! ! !
mickeybritt: Not much of a short-squeeze remains with only 1`,044,000 shares short as of 1-31-2017.
IF the short position was 5 or 6 million shares, then a short squeeze would really be significant.
I don't short or trade options, but IMO the shorts have pretty much covered a major portion of their positions from those high levels and what we have now is shorting in the $85-$95 range where the loss is not that great for some of these shorts.
JMO
SOMEBODY WANTS IDCC SHARES THIS MORNING
Pre-Market Volume: Pre-Market High: Pre-Market Low:
55,200----$ 94.95----(08:53:29 AM)----$ 94.95----(08:53:29 AM)
Another attempt at a $95 close falls short by $0.05 today. I'm hoping that Friday will bring that elusive 95th floor to reality !
JMO
bulldzr: Like you, I keep revising my parameters for the exit strategy.
My one parameter was to wait for 2017 (which has finally arrived).
Second, a continued fundamentals direction (which has not changed)
Third, steady to upward price movement(price levels have moved up, slowly but at new closing highs).
Fourth, potential for new deals or signing of existing 'problem' customers (we signed Huawei and Apple; still to come are LG, ZTE, Foxconn, and Xioami)
Last, no negative press on any other matters.
The next hurdle is the year-end results which I am hoping bear no downward surprises (but we know the saying buy on the rumor, sell on the news).
I'm hoping at a minimum the price range breaks the $100+ level but$90-$200 is fine with me.
JMO
Easy mickey: read the article carefully several times to digest the information before you question Merritt's past expectations comments.
7 Tech Stocks With Explosive Growth Potential
InterDigital
http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T058-S015-7-tech-stocks-with-explosive-growth-potential/index.html?rid=SYN-yahoo&rpageid=16199
[below is part of the article]
InterDigital, Inc. (IDCC) is one of the most influential stocks in the burgeoning Internet of Things (IoT) sector. Since the sector is in its relative infancy, its stature isn’t global, but it is at the heart of “The Next Big Thing” in tech.
IoT basically is about connecting devices and objects to one another. It means that if you get a flat tire your car can call a tow truck and get you an appointment in the shop to get it replaced before you can pull over. It means you can manage everything from lights, to locks, to heating and cooling your house remotely.
By 2020, the IoT market is expected to be a $1.3 trillion industry, according to an International Data Corp. report. That means a 15.6% compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2015 and 2020.
IDCC is one of the key companies that makes the equipment to manage and facilitate the connectivity of devices to one another. Its potential growth is already evident in its third-quarter numbers — revenue more than doubled for the quarter versus the year-ago quarter, primarily on a licensing deal.
BLOCK TRADE IN PRE MARKET TRADING
Pre-Market Volume: Pre-Market High:Pre-Market Low:
13,800(08:36:28 AM) $ 94.55 $ 94.55
SIGN HIM UP !
JimLur: today is a positive day for utilities (WEC, SO, PPL, AEP, AEE, FE, DUK, ED) WHICH ARE UP); Pharma stocks (PFE, LLY) are also up.
Industrials (GE, TXT)and tech stocks (QCOM, INTC) and Oil sectors (XOM. OXY) are also down.
Secular market rotation.
JimLue; today is a positive day for utility 9and drug stocks while tech and industrials are down
DataRox: Still enjoying the IDCC elevator ride back ovr the $90+ range?
You still in QCOM? Getting pretty ugly BUT, I dropped a line and snagged some cheaper shares today. Hope, like IDCC, that their dust settles and they come out smelling like a rose!
BLTA
mickeybritt, that is why we have courts.
The old saying "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it must be a duck" no longer applies.
There are nearly 100 species of ducks in the world. Each species has its own unique characteristics that separate it from the other species of ducks. So, even though GOD created the duck, he also made a 'work-around' that makes one species of duck different from another species.
Same for patents. Not all patents are created equal. They may get you from point A to point B eventually, but how they get there may be different. That is where the courts decide which 'duck' a manufacturer use before an injunction can be issued.
JMO
mickeybritt: see the following from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND), also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND), denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard.[1] Put differently, a F/RAND commitment is a voluntary agreement between the standard-setting organization and the holder of standard-essential patents. U.S. courts, as well as courts in other jurisdictions, have found that, in appropriate circumstances, the implementer of a standard—that is, a firm or entity that uses a standard to render a service or manufacture a product—is an intended third-party beneficiary of the FRAND agreement, and, as such, is entitled to certain rights conferred by that agreement.[2]
A standard-setting organization is an industry group that sets common standards for its particular industry to ensure compatibility and interoperability of devices manufactured by different companies.[3] A patent becomes standard-essential when a standard-setting organization sets a standard that adopts the technology that the patent covers.
Because a patent, under most countries' legal regimes, grants its inventor an exclusive right to use the covered technology, a standard-setting organization generally must obtain permission from the patent holder to include a patented technology in its standard. So, it will often request that a patent holder clarify its willingness to offer to license its standard-essential patents on FRAND terms. If the patent holder refuses upon request to license a patent that has become essential to a standard, then the standard-setting organization must exclude that technology. When viewed in this light, the FRAND commitment serves to harmonize the private interests of patent holders and the public interests of standard-setting organizations. Many scholars have written about these topics, as well as a variety of other legal and economic issues concerning licensing on F/RAND terms.[4]
F/RAND as a contract[edit]
Standard-setting organizations commonly adopt policies that govern the ownership of patent rights that apply to the standards they adopt (the patent policy). In the United States, the patent holder's agreement to adhere by the patent policy creates a legally binding contract, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Microsoft v. Motorola. One of the most common policies is to require a patent holder that voluntarily agrees to include its patented technology in the standard to license that technology on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" (RAND) or on "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms" (FRAND). The two terms are generally interchangeable; FRAND seems to be preferred in Europe and RAND in the U.S.[1]
Some commentators argue that standard-setting organizations include the FRAND obligation in their bylaws primarily as a means of enhancing the pro-competitive character of their industry. They are intended to prevent members from engaging in licensing abuse based on the monopolistic advantage generated as a result of having their intellectual property rights (IPR) included in the industry standards. Once an organization is offering a FRAND license they are required to offer that license to anyone (wishing to access the standard), not necessarily only members of the organization.[1][5] Without such commitment, members could use monopoly power inherent in a standard to impose unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory licensing terms that would damage competition and inflate their own relative position.
On the other hand, commentators stress that the FRAND commitment also serves to ensure that the holder of a patent that becomes essential to the standard will receive royalties from users of the standard that adequately compensate the patent holder for the incremental value that its technology contributes to the standard.[6] The development of a patented technology typically requires significant investment in research, and contributing that technology to a standard is not the only option by which a patent holder can recoup that investment and thus monetize its invention. For example, a patent holder has the option to monetize that invention through exclusive use or exclusive licensing. Technology owners might have insufficient incentives to contribute their technologies to a standard-setting organization without the promise of an adequate royalty. The promise of a F/RAND royalty address that problem: the patent holder will typically agree to contribute its technology to the standard, thus forgoing the exclusive use or the exclusive licensing of its technology, in exchange for the assurance that it will receive adequate compensation in reasonable royalties.[7]
In 2013, court decisions and scholarly articles cited FRAND commitments 10 times more often than in 2003.[8]
Definitions[edit]
While there are no legal precedents to spell out specifically what the actual terms mean, it can be interpreted from the testimony of people like Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford University, in front of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the individual terms are defined as follows:
Fair relates mainly to the underlying licensing terms. Drawing from anti-trust/competition law; fair terms means terms which are not anti-competitive and that would not be considered unlawful if imposed by a dominant firm in their relative market. Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are: requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want or requiring licensees to take licenses to certain unwanted or unneeded patents to obtain licenses to other desired patents (bundling); requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs); and including restrictive conditions on licensees’ dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).
Reasonable refers mainly to the licensing rates. According to some, a reasonable licensing rate is a rate charged on licenses which would not result in an unreasonable aggregate rate if all licensees were charged a similar rate. According to this view, aggregate rates that would significantly increase the cost to the industry and make the industry uncompetitive are unreasonable. Similarly, a reasonable licensing rate must reward the licensor with adequate compensation for contributing its essential patents to a standard. Compensation is adequate if it provides the licensor with the incentive to continue investing and contributing to the standard in future time periods.[9] It is worth noting that a licensor which has several different licensing packages might be tempted to have both reasonable and unreasonable packages. However having a reasonable "bundled" rate does not excuse having unreasonable licensing rates for smaller unbundled packages. All licensing rates must be reasonable.
Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can’t change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors and to ensure that potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis.
The most controversial issue in RAND licensing is whether the "reasonable" license price should include the value contributed by the standard-setting organization's decision to adopt the standard. A technology is often more valuable after it has been widely adopted than when it is one alternative among many; there is a good argument that a license price that captures that additional value is not "reasonable" because it does not reflect the intrinsic value of the technology being licensed. On the other hand, the adoption of the standard may signal that the adopted technology is valuable, and the patent holder should be rewarded accordingly. That is particularly relevant when the value of the patent is not clearly known before the adoption of the standard.[10]
Some interpretations of "non-discriminatory" can include time-oriented licensing terms such as an "early bird" license offered by a licensor where terms of a RAND license are better for initial licensees or for licensees who sign a license within the first year of its availability.
Excluding costless distribution schemes[edit]
RAND terms exclude intangible goods which the producer may decide to distribute at no cost and where third parties may make further copies. Take for example a software package that is distributed at no cost and to which the developer wants to add support for a video format which requires a patent licence. If there is a licence which requires a tiny per-copy fee, the software project will not be able to avail of the licence. The licence may be called "(F)RAND", but the modalities discriminate against a whole category of intangible goods such as free software[11] and freeware.[12]
This form of discrimination can be similarly caused by common licence terms such as only applying to complete implementations of the licensed standard, limiting use to particular fields, or restricting redistribution. The Free Software Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licences are inherently discriminatory.[13]
Related licenses[edit]
Related to RAND licenses are RAND-Z (RAND with zero royalty) or RAND-RF (RAND Royalty Free) licensing, in which a company promises to license the technology at no charge, but implementers still have to get the licenser's permission to implement. The licenser may not make money off the deal but can still stop some type of products or require some type of reciprocity or do more subtle things like drag out the licensing process.[14][15][16]
Negotiating process[edit]
Further information: Orange-Book-Standard and Huawei v ZTE
The negotiating process for FRAND licenses places requirements on the patent owner and the envisioned patentee. The terms for these negotiations were set in German case law in a case regarding the Orange-Book-Standard, and these terms are often used in licensing negotiations. In 2015 the European Court of Justice interpreted FRAND licensing terms in case Huawei v ZTE (C170/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:477 significantly diverging from the Orange-Book-Standard.[17]
JimLur, I have Scottrade also. Can you tell me where you found the summzary for short sales (What screen and caption)
Also, is there a place where you can see block trades?
TIA
With nearly a 70% institutional ownership (holdings), I don't see someone holding out for a poison pill of $250 or a premium of 175% OVER today's current trading levels.
In my opinion, a buyout with a premium of 50% over current levels would be snapped up in a heartbeat, unless a bidding war began for the company.
jmo