I believe in all the years of reading this board, this may be the most egregious case of "connecting the dots" that I have ever seen, LOL

Really?? There is no dot-connecting here at all, let alone the "most egregious". I merely stated my concern about the nature of the convertible offering. After all, as I said, it was a very unusual structure. Let's just leave it at that.

As far as selling early. Give me a break. I hold shares I bought in the $3.50 range.

dozer... Respectfully disagree. IDCC has never done any meaningful deal with any major Wall Street firm. I would hope that the first and only deal that they do would be understood by the COB.

Look at it this way: If Clontz totally understood the deal, he would not off-handedly, say "I don't understand WS". Conversely, if he did understand WS, he would not make that statement after having approved the deal. JMO.

AMC...sorry to interrupt, but that is a great question. I am very suspicious of the true nature of this transaction. Being the jaded person that I am, I have to wonder what it is all about. This was a very sophisticated transaction, with hedges and other unusual aspects that one does not see every day.

If Terry Clontz, who proclaimed at the annual meeting that he "doesn't understand Wall Street", doesn't understand the ramifications of the transaction then who, at IDCC, does? The parameters of this transaction are akin to the dreaded death-spiral convertibles that have sunk many companies. I do not believe that is the case here because the amount of the transaction is only a fraction of the current market cap and there are stabilizing aspects to the deal. If we only knew who the buyers of this deal were, we would have some clarity.

My concern is that Barclay's (unbeknownst, or not, to IDCC) is facilitating the exit strategy of those who have been short for a long, long time and have no way out, but for this transaction. IMO.

dozer, putting aside the unknowns that OD and I have discussed, I believe that whatever the result of the auction, IDCC believes that the dollar value of the patents at issue will shed a light on the real value of its own extensive portfolio. (And, imo, it is substantially higher than the valuation that the market assigns it).

I think we will know a lot more, very short-term.

OD..I am not sure about that. When you think about it, any and every entity whether a sole bidder or a consortium has to be individually vetted by the bankruptcy custodian. IMO, the instance you cited would not be collusion but merely a consortium planing on how the pot would be split. I believe the collusion reference addresses competing entities colluding.

I believe it is most likely that the winning bidder (again, single or multiple entities) will take the entire pot. Further, the reference to the "buckets" being sold separately does allow for multiple winners but, it also allows for the fact that, if a consortium is successful in winning everything, the individual buckets can be sold directly to the specified members of the consortium. (i.e., not passing to the shell but rather to the individual partners). JMO.

post...Unless I am missing something, I think we will find out who Rockstar is after the first round of bidding. I don't think the FOIA will be necessary. Also, I would subscribe to the "smokescreen" theory. For all we know, Intel, Apple and Rockstar (IDC, IV and Fortress) could have already divvied up the "buckets" and will bid for the whole thing. Just idle musing.

postyle, magilla...Thanks for providing those articles. While everything is still a mystery, it appears we will find out a lot as early as next week. Can't help but think the strength of IDCC's SP in a tough market may presage a surprise as to whom IDCC is aligned with in the process. JMO.

Wsatitagain.....With all of the option activity of late, it is very likely that you will be right. The shorts have most certainly hedged themselves to a fare-the-well. We will see. Hopefully sooner that later. IMO.

Carly...Sadly, it does make sense. I never thought I'd be part of a grass-roots effort, but that is what it has come down to.

Postyle..Thanks for that. It's been a while (5 months+) since I listened to the hearing. I think we should feel good about our arguments and the decision, although anything can happen in the courts.

DM....If there's anyone who has any doubt of the curruption that goes on in the markets, they will no longer have any doubts after reading Deep Capture. Imo....Deep Capture deserves an award for their journalism.

Agree 100%.

dmiller....Thanks for taking the time. Not a pretty picture.

To all...Ok, so now the saga at Deepcapture.com is up to Chapter 17 and since I have not read one post here commenting on its content, I have to assume that no one is interested. While it is sometimes difficult to get the gist of a story by reading one chapter out of many, I plead to everyone on this board to read, at least, the beginning of this chapter. It won't take more than 2 minutes of your time.

http://www.deepcapture.com/the-miscreants-global-bust-out-chapter-17-a-brief-note-on-the-unimaginable/

Goodbuddy, Many, including myself, have speculated that Nokia (most likely initiated by the now ex-CFO Simonson) has, through some of Simonson's hedge fund buddies, pressured IDCC's stock through persistent short sales. I would not necessarily tie this manipulation to a lower buyout price. IMO, it has been simply to contain the market value of IDCC via-a-vis the amount of money Nokia owes IDCC.

About 6 or 8 years ago someone close to the company told me that Nokia made a statement that they would not pay IDCC (in a settlement) an amount near equal to their market cap! I thought it was interesting that Nokia was so tuned into the market value of IDCC. Bottom line, IMO, Simonson was a manipulative, ex-hedge fund SOB who orchestrated the capping of IDCC's share price.

Any body interested in the "trivial" issue of unsettled trades, here is the link I mentioned:


http://www.economist.com/node/18774844/print

Re: Nokia/Apple settlement. I don't know if this has been discussed, but does anyone see any significance to the timing of this settlement. Is it just coincidence that it came just before the Nortel auction or was there some court-related action or event that facilitated the quick settlement? TIA.

postyle (OT).....Our exchange last night went way further than I had wanted or intended. And, if I thought you would spend time giving CV's cv (curriculum vitae), instead of enjoying our first Cup in 39 years, I would have begged you not to.

Anyway, I have learned not to put too much faith in any one analyst or market-related site. I truly believe that the sum total of knowledge from several of the posters on this board, by far, surpasses any past or present "analyst" who follows IDCC.

Now go Red Sox!

So what? So your comment - while possibly true most of the time, and definitely true some of the time - wasn't true this time. That's what.

So how do you determine that this time is different? Is it because it jibes with your outlook, your hopes?

So what? I'd say it doesn't speak well of CV. Anyone can be "published" on SA. NJ is a case in point.

Seeking alpha is not a credible source, Agendae galore.

For those who still pooh-pooh the notion that our system is broken, don't believe me. Here is an article from "The Register" commenting on an article from "The Economist". I will try to find the actual article from The Economist. The current average daily FTDs comprise $200B of "phantom" shares.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/patrick_byrne_on_dodgy_american_financial_plumbing/

Loop.. I couldn't agree more. However, the success of those infringing is more due to the imperfection of the legal system than it is the integrity of our IPR. Those whom we are chasing around the courts are very aware of this. I guess our lack of consistent success can be attributed, ultimately, to the disadvantage of being an NPE.

warbil...In the short term, I have no idea. However, I do believe that all the recent machinations of the SP and associated options comprise the execution of the short's exit strategy. For example, if the seller of those puts (totaling 2.8M shares) were able to short the SP into the money and keep it there with say, 1M shares, they would pick up 1.8M shares net. It is obvious that, with the current volume, the position cannot be covered in the market by simply buying back.

I still believe that management is doing most, if not all, the right things. And I believe the shorts know it.

We have learned nothing. Derivatives now total 10 times the Global Gross Domestic Product. They will take us down again, perhaps for the last time.

The ability for hedge funds and other unsavory entities to essentially take out "insurance" on something they don't own and then short, into oblivion, those underlying securities is obscene.

There is a simple solution: Unless you have an insurable interest you cannot "bet". History, in many cases, does repeat itself.

In the mid-1700's, in England it was possible for merchants to purchase insurance on cargo ships that carried said merchant's goods (insurable interest). Someone had the bright idea to let anyone purchase this insurance (no insurable interest). It's probably pretty obvious what happened: More and more ships sank en route.

jjff. I had seen that. (OT) By the way, Chapter 14 came out today. Best yet (especially the part about the DTCC)

No short or long would base such a huge bet on something as unpredictable as a CAFC decision. As corrupt as this world is, I doubt that the shorts have an inside track at the CAFC. Their long-standing, large short has more to do with manipulation-for-profit than anything else, IMO.

New Short Interest....Just under 500K more were covered. Down to 6.1M, with d-t-c of 10.2. At the peak of 8.1M (March 15), it was 7.3 d-t-c.

ellis...assuming you meant won't lose not "want", you are absolutely correct. I wish that many on this board would spend as much energy being outraged at a system that allows this kind of BS as they do dissing management and other wastes of time.

triangle..(OT) ....If he still has the same position that he claimed on another board, I would say he has been busy with margin calls. JMO.

OD...This is really interesting. About 3 years ago I called Bill Nasgovitz to discuss another company (FRPT). I was about to go to the annual meeting of FRPT and because (through some sort of coincidence) his fund's 2 largest positions happened to be mine also, I thought he might be interested in what I learned at the meeting. When I called Heartland, I was connected to a Will Nasgovitz. Turns out, they are 2 different people! I can't recall their relationship----maybe cousins, I don't know but my recollection was that Will was a debt-oriented manager as opposed to Bill who is equity-oriented.

None of this really matters, but for the edification of those invested in IDCC, I believe this SEC situation involved Will, not Bill.

Strange.

OD. Thanks for your usual great DD. But to be precise, when you said "with regard to Heartland and Bill Nasgovitz", were you implying that Nasgovitz had something to do with improper trading in a high-yield bond fund?

Dozer. (OT). Must be synchronicity! I was just thinking you'd be a good candidate for having an interest in this site. The site is deepcapture.com. There is a section on the right-hand side of the home page that gives a lot of background on naked shorting, and other related topics. (It is my impression that you are probably aware of most of this background stuff)

The "Miscreant's Global Bust-out" is what I am reading now. It is a 23 chapter expose of which, the 12th has recently been posted to the site. It will take you some time to catch up, but I think you will be glad you made the effort. Let me know what you think.

Best.

Dozer....Thanks. I am glad to hear that this issue is coming to the fore. However, if that "concern" doesn't turn into action real soon, we are cooked..

Jjff..(continued OT). Yeah. The entire saga is mind-blowing. I wish it were required reading for everyone on this board!. Although, since it would take more than a few minutes to read, we'd end up with just a few participants left on the board. tic.

Washington and the SEC continue to fiddle while Rome burns. IMO, there will be, without a doubt, another market meltdown. And, it will be the last one. The demise of our market, economy and way of life is inevitable and imminent if drastic measures are not taken immediately.

Re: Heartland. I saw that too. My impression was that it is not one and the same, but I could be wrong. (Btw, I noticed that Chapter 12 is now available)

OD..Thanks. eom.

Actually, it is 70%. I would have to dig for the source. My ex-partner (who is still in the investment business) gave me the link a few months ago. I'm sorry, you don't qualify as someone for whom I would the spend time trying to find it. Why don't you just consider it my opinion rather than fact, if you must.

Every stock has the same daytraders and manipulators. It's just the way it is. (precisely my point. thanks for the regurgitation). Company performance rules the stock price in the end. (When is the end? Not yet.) Do you think that mgt has done a great job signing new licensees? Do you think the company has done a great job renewing licenses? (Don't know yet. I guess we'll have to wait until "the end" to see) In the end company performance will be reflected in the stock price. The street likes clarity. Everything about this company is as clear as mud. This stock will never be priced appropriately unless the view from the top becomes less cloudy. (You have a pretty good understanding of the way "the street" used to be. Unfortunately, you are living about 10 years in the past.)

BS. The share price is much more determined by those who play the SP like a fiddle, collecting nickels and dimes, every day, from all those that still believe the market is a level playing field. The "real" shareholders have little to do with the share price.

As a side note per Clontz there is still something about the Apple contract that is not public.

I'm still hoping our bandwidth and compression technologies will be enabling AT&T to deliver Apple's "cloud music" in a faster and more efficient manner than AT&T is now capable of. I don't think anyone knows how we would get paid for this, but it would have to be big, IMO.

OD...Thanks for the update on the Madoff Exemption modification. It does not change my premise. The ability to flood the market with non-existent shares, along with the ability to "short" on downticks is all that is needed to manipulate prices. They have 3 days to buy back the shares that didn't exist to begin with. Big deal. All it does is put somewhat of a collar on the extent to which they can manipulate in a given amount of time.

BTW, regarding today's speed of trading: 70% of all equity positions are held for 11 seconds or less. .