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.
jiff, that was in the context of old investors having the hangover of lawsuits and bad experiences from all these days and unable to shake it off.
Anyway, new investors doesn't necessarily mean good unless they are entering after good DD (not like traders looking for a quick return).
-vg_future
wilco244, with the kind of IP environment, I guess litigation would be a part of daily business till a point is reached. Betting on the future is one thing, but, constant bashing (implied not direct) with the current valuation surprises me....particularly when analysts express concern over the disconnect while not willing to give the true valuation.
JMHO,
vg_future
I agree, a fresh outlook and maybe a bunch of new investors.
-vg_future
Or to put it in other words, the report reflects the nervous guys on this board......who started worrying about a license 1 1/2 yrs before it even expires. In my opinion, that is like killing the stock's potential before it even starts taking off. I am not sure why the double standard of one set of expectations from other stocks and one explicitly for IDCC.
Anyway, I am tired of the constant complaining that goes on this board about expiring licenses while ignoring the obvious increase in the revenues....I guess these revenues are coming from thin air and only IDCC can do this trick.
JMHO,
vg_future
note : wilco244, this is not a post against you, just a general comment.
Thanks for the report JimLur. Going back to Tom C's question regarding the disconnect between the company's worth and the valuation that investors are giving, I am surprised that he doesn't know the answer when analysts like him and others are not ready to give true valuations. Their worry about license renewal starts 1 1/2 yrs prior to the expiration of the license that has life of 5 yrs. Something doesn't add up here properly. Are they posing nervousness or really nervous? With this mentality and lack of confidence, how can the investors give true valuation.
Anyway, for the records, JimLur, I am not trying to bash the analysts for bashing purpose. I personally feel that IDCC would do better without help from the analysts.
JMHO,
vg_future
Thanks olddog967. Does that mean that we could be adding roughly around 2 million or over per quarter from this new/updated license? An increase in quarterly recurring revenue. That is good. TIA.
-vg_future
From the CC
Tom Carpenter's question
Tom Carpenter – Hilliard Lyons
Later on this year, you guys are getting another $100 million from Samsung. I think right now, you are right about $10 per share in cash and if you get that, you will be closer to $12. When you subtract cash from your current market cap, the market is giving you guys about a $660 million market cap and I would think at minimum, your patents are worth $1 billion. So there seems to be a disconnect between investors and what you guys are capable of. Can you talk about, I know you guys are obviously working on closing deals and things of that nature, but how can you convey your 4G, LTE, WiMAX, machine to machine, and all the patents you guys have to the Street? I know you guys are going to continue to be a cash flow machine in the next generation of technology.
I think the disconnect is the analysts not counting these in their valuations and targets (I think even Tom's target doesn't reflect this). Anyway, hope TC uses the above valuation and comes with a target that is north of $40 to $45.
JMHO,
vg_future
lando1, I personally feel (I am not sure if they can or not) that they should have mentioned these expenses (or increase in them) when they gave the guidance update. That would have helped the analysts to cut that much from the estimates increase. It wouldn't look like a miss had they done that.
JMHO,
vg_future
I understand. What I was saying is that the chart didn't cause the move, but, it was the results and hence it cannot claimed as "I told you so".
-vg_future
That is not prophecy...you just got lucky with IDCC's results and your prediction was for normal IDCC's behavior sans NEWS. We have another in house guy that matches your mentality. I am sure he has given his kudos to you.
-vg_future
Not worth it. Deleted. EOM
-vg_future
MAy 31 call volume currently at 1478 (from TDAmeritrade).
-vg_future
Looks like someone is taking hefty position in calls as well before earnings. More than 2000 May calls traded this morning.
-vg_future
Data_Rox, that is the one I was referring to. Thanks for the clarification. I got it confused, sorry.
-vg_future
olddog967, thanks.
The_Net, I thought Data_Rox posted (I could be wrong) that Samsung is not licensed (or atleast the existing licensing payments do not include) for TD-SCDMA. My memory is not that great, so, I could be wrong. Or was it LG that he mentioned???? I am unable to recollect.
-vg_future
my3sons87, okay, thanks for the clarification.
-vg_future
my3sons87, as per olddog967's post the other day, the "notice" of brief (IDCC vs ITC because we are appealing ITC's decision) is still not submitted, right? Just clarifying.
TIA,
vg_future
olddog967, thanks. I appreciate it.
-vg_future
my3sons87, Thanks. Sorry for the confusion...what I meant was the "notice" not the "brief"....so if I understand you right....we are still waiting to see if the notice is filed. Thanks for your quick response.
From olddog967's post
my3sons: For the CAFC the briefs themselves are not available for viewing on PACER. What is shown is a notice that the brief was filed. This notice has to be prepared and entered manually by someone at the CAFC and could be a day or two after the actual filing was received.
-vg_future
olddog967, are you stating the general procedure or there is an actual brief filed in IDCC vs NOK case?
TIA,
vg_future
Surge in volume and price (a little)....????? keeping my fingers crossed.
-vg_future
thelurker, that is an interesting thought about enterprise usage. Let's see how it pans out.
-vg_future
gatticaa, It might be April 1st prank.
-vg_future
NeoInvestor, I don't know when he adopted the pre-planned sale for this lot....so, at the point when he adopted the plan probably it made sense to exercise and sell immediately no matter where the stock is as long as it is above the exercise price. My point is....it is pretty hard to say that he didn't show enough confidence in the stock (by not keeping the stock....with a price tag of 500K out of pocket).
Anyway, I would be worried only if it is not a pre-planned sale.
JMHO,
vg_future
NeoInvestor, that is a pre-planned sale and on the day of expiration...not a big deal.
JMHO,
vg_future
MJPLIFE11, also the sale was a pre-planned sale.
-vg_future
MTJBKH, I am afraid you are wrong. Last week they only mentioned that 40 mill between 1st and 2nd quarters....means there was no clear update to the guidance and probably was the reason, I believe, why no analysts ventured. Now, we have the whole falling into 1st quarter....that is almost a $1 before taxes. Going RED today is totally absurd.....or somebody with some muscle and real big balls is trying to keep a lid on the price.
JMHO,
vg_fuure
revlis, I read Merritt's statement as referring to the existing ones because it is hard to guess the issuance of new ones let alone timing them. Anyway, let's wait and see.
-vg_future
To revlis, I don't have premium membership, so, posting it here.
In response to your post regarding the one month extension :
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47798948
My thoughts :
1. To my knowledge, IDCC already has the extensions for the patents that can be applied to the patents involved in ITC process and these will supposedly cover the limitations that NOK successfully convinced the judge with. One of the board experts might be able pull up the reference posts that covered this issue.
2. Why would NOK agree to an extension when it thinks/suspects (an I think NOK's legal team is smart enough) that IDCC might add patents that can corner them?
JMHO,
vg_future
Thanks. I didn't know that he was posting on Mickey's board. I will post the message there then.
-vg_future
To revlis, I don't have premium membership, so, posting it here.
In response to your post regarding the one month extension :
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47798948
My thoughts :
1. To my knowledge, IDCC already has the extensions for the patents that can be applied to the patents involved in ITC process and these will supposedly cover the limitations that NOK successfully convinced the judge with. One of the board experts might be able pull up the reference posts that covered this issue.
2. Why would NOK agree to an extension when it thinks/suspects (an I think NOK's legal team is smart enough) that IDCC might add patents that can corner them?
JMHO,
vg_future
xdx & Eneerg, thanks for all your efforts. Much appreciated. EOM
JimLur, I believe that is a different category under LTE. Data posted another link the same day where it showed IDCC at 19% and QCOm at 32 or 33 %.
-vg_future
Data_Rox, not to speak for NJ, but, I think that number came from IDCC's mgmt in an indirect reference where they said Nortel's patents were valid at 2 Billion or more and IDCC's are more than that.
I know that it is hard to put a $ value on patents unless someone fits them in a license earning revenue model (real one...not theoretical) or a real cross licensing scenario with a dollar face value. But, with its LTE patents accounting for close to 20% of the total, what would be the $ value that can be assigned to IDCC's patent portfolio? Didn't QCOM pay over 750 mill for the OFDM patents (and a provision to pay further).
JMHO,
vg_future
Mickey, thanks for the invitation. Goodluck to all the true longs here. Hope they come out successful. It has been a real long wait.
-vg_future
olddog967, wouldn't that be Billy Bob then? I thought he bought the shares that were sold short. However, this brings up something real important. All the longs have disable the loaning of their shares for shorting or else there is nice hole to transfer the voting rights from the original owner to the new guys (who might have just bought the shares for the voting purposes). That would be bad.
JMHO,
vg_future
Data_Rox, the cross licensing thing all makes sense, but, what I recently read is that Apple might not want to go down the cross licensing path because they don't want to license their innovative technology (moreover they are not bound by any standards committee and hence don't even have to offer license for their patents). All they want to do is pay FRAND rate for NOK innovations. If that works, that is good for Apple or else they can get IDCC and use its patents (which are part of standards) for cross licensing and still keep their core innovations to themselves to stay ahead.
JMHO,
vg_future
NukeJohn, would that be the attila investment? I am just guessing.
-vg_future
OT- NukeJohn, thanks for your thoughts. Appreciate it.
-vg_future