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.
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
OT, Nukejohn, regarding RMBS. The trial date change from 1/11/10 to 1/13/10 is very interesting. Actually there might be a lot that I am missing or don't understand in RMBS's case, but, when a similar delay (a day or two) happened in the case of IDCC & LU, they announced the settlement that day or the next day. Usually the delay/extension is to make sure that no body goes about preparing for the case on the original date and the second date is moot (because of the settlement). Do you read it the same way? TIA
I can read but can't post on RMBS's board.
-vg_future
midwest, thanks. I didn't know that. I thought he is moving onto greener pastures.
-vg_future
olddog967, the pressure could be from institutions and maybe they are not satisfied with his CEO performance (though he has many accomplishments....LG/Samsung/Pantech....to claim) due to lack of share price appreciation. His move could be forced....I am theorizing a lot...so, let me stop my assumptions here. I just had a thought that a COO of QCOM would give an excellent facade for IDCC and since BM had accomplishments to his credit, I didn't want to rule him out with further role in IDCC's future and hence the COB theory. Again, as I said, I am making too many assumptions/theories. So, I just want to see how this plays out.
-vg_future
mickeybritt, let's see how the COB scenario plays out in the new year.
-vg_future
olddog967, I am not saying that he will be considered independent director.
I should have mentioned/clarified earlier in my post. I am going with the assumption that IDCC has enough independent board members as per the SEC rules. So, BM doesn't have to fit the independent director profile.
JMHO,
vg_future
JimLur, yes, it would be tough to give up the benefits and salary. But, again, BM can be more involved (rather than simply being non participating/outsider type) and hence a different package can be justified for him.
Also, recently QCOM's COO resigned to become CEO of an unnamed company (the company name will be announced in Jan, 2009 as per he news release given out). SO, I am trying to see if that move could be towards IDCC. Harry passed away after that new release (so, I am not tying that with this), but, maybe he was sick before then and a transition was in the works. I am just wild guessing.
JMHO.
-vg_future
I am not familiar with the corporate governance rules, but, I just wanted to add another possibility in there...
can BM become the COB and IDCC get a new CEO? I don't know if this is good or bad though...just throwing the idea out there.
-vg_future
Data_Rox, I agree. That is how it appears. But, why NOK is starting the noise before AAPL pressed/demanded its IP rights from NOK? Though the motive is cross-licensing, part of this drama looks like NOK is crying foul while still trying to catch up on the smartphone fever and obviously failing to catch up.
-vg_future
BRIEF-Nokia opens new patent battle against Apple
Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:49am EST
Stocks
Nokia Oyj
NOK1V.HE
€8.87
+0.06+0.68%
9:42am EST
HELSINKI, Dec 29 (Reuters) - The world's largest mobile phone maker Nokia (NOK1V.HE) said on Tuesday: * Requests ITC investigation into Apple patent infringement
* Says Apple infringing 7 patents in "nearly all products" sold -spokesman
* Says expects ITC decision in around 30 days or so
* Says Apple aapl.o "building its business" on Nokia proprietary innovation
* Says if ITC takes up its case, would not expect action against Apple until early 2011
(Reporting by Brett Young)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNHEL00943220091229?rpc=44
I just wish NOK gets this in its face. As loophole once mentioned, somebody should portray NOK's true picture to the world and there should be a whole segment for IDCC's saga.
Would it make sense for AAPL could acquire IDCC and use IDCC's patent war chest to cross sue NOK...just thinking out loud.
-vg_future
google phone....a reality.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/12/07/daily94.html?ana=yfcpc
most likely made by HTC....hence royalty bearing for IDCC.
-vg_future
From form 10-Q/A,
We are considering whether to file an appeal of the Commission's decision to the United State Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Comparability of Financial Results
Since this is done already, they should either update this form immediately.
-vg_future
JimLur, thanks for that. Amazing genius. EOM
-vg_future
Interesting! This should motivate some of the phone companies (RIMM, AAPL, MOT or LG) to buy IDCC and workout a better straight/cross licensing deal with the big guys (QCOM,NOK).
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=443044&pt=msg&mid=8148325
JMHO,
vg_future
mickeybritt, thanks for the clarification. Appreciate it. EOM
mickeybritt, TC has put out a report last week after the appeal denial and he mentioned about buybacks, mgmt buying from their packet and the company's potential buyout (private firm or another big company like RIMM). Are you referring to the same report?
TIA,
vg_future
LTE, I understand what you are saying and I follow RMBS and the whole AT case saga. Samusng is not a saint and their actions with even IDCC made that pretty clear. All I am saying is that the contingency might not come into picture for this license because it could go both ways and Samsung wouldn't want to find themselves owing more.
Anyway, I didn't mean that you are cooking up things, all I thought was that the idea of contingency didn't seem plausible.
-vg_future
LTE, that is pretty wild for imagination. I don't think Samsung can pull the plug if NOK won the ITC. They considered risk to reward ratio and signed. That's all to it.
Going by your theory, had IDCC won over NOK (in the ID), what would the contingency say....Samsung will pay us more?
JMHO,
vg_future
badgerkid, thanks for the info. I would assume that no company will be interested in talking about anything like this on a earnings call. It will be like expressing interest openly about the sale of the company and that in my opinion could be viewed as weakness of the company/mgmt?
JMHO,
vg_future
Apple could buy IDCC and avoid the need to buy QCOM chips (atleast just for the reason of capping the royalties)...if they need QCOM chips for other reasons then it is different. Apple could use IDCC's IPR for cross-licensing or heck even cross-suing.
JMHO,
vg_future
All, regarding NukeJohn, I don't think we should attack the poster. I have seen his messages on RMBS and TSRA and they seemed to be balanced and mostly long. I think he afforded what he can from his experience. His analysis might be totally wrong about IDCC, but I don't think there is any need to call him a short.
I personally think IDCC will get the review based on IDCC's presentation rather than staff's conclusion.
JMHO,
vg_future
Japan digging up QCOM's licensing deals.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCNT8254520090930?rpc=44
-vg_future
You beat me to it KAJO7710.
-vg_future
From teecee on AB board : New analyst coverage $36 target.
http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?mode=read&id=448333
-vg_future
Thanks MJP and RedCyfac. That's a pretty hefty payment to be ignored. Could it be from Sanyo/NEC or any other Japanese licensee? If so, what is the 76M that we received earlier....RIMM/APPL? This is exciting..IMHO.
-vg_future
Anybody, is this 105 M a part of Samsung payments?
TIA,
vg_future
sloane6, that is not true. Ask your friend to check out the SEC filings. There were no sales other than the Aug 5th 10b5-1 planned sales from Merritt and Kiernan (which was already covered on this board long back). He has to get his facts straight.
-vg_future
slacker711, I am really tired of your constant negativity...I don't care how you may want spin it....there is no plain intention that I can sense here. You don't have to care what I say....but, I will say it anyway because you are doing the same from your side as if you are on a constant campaign for something.
-vg_future
slacker711, I understand the part of sharing knowledge and contributing to the board, but, beating the same drum (that we are bound to have problems with LG licensing) particularly when LTLs morale is so low after the recent hit isn't exactly encouraging eventhough it comes in the form of knowledge and experience sharing. You might want to qualify it as reality check, but, it could, in MHO, only serve the short term traders. LG has signed the whole portfolio. It isn't doing the cherry picking like NOK to get the best (I would rather qualify it as squeezed) deal....for that matter there wasn't any legal action against LG, so, that tells me that they got a real good deal. As far as SE or MOT are concerned, they might be waiting for NOK to sign and that isn't new...i.e., not tied to NOK winning this round...win or lose they might be tied to NOK.
JMHO,
vg_future
slacker711, without knowing the whole picture of what IDCC does and how (as far as licensing is concerned), why do you keep saying that LG might not renew? This is what I meant when I said people trying to plant doubt seeds....I am not sure what your goal is. Are you privy to something that nobody else is privy to.
Just checking....
-vg_future
infinite_q or intime, can this new patent (that covers the handsets) be referred to in the commissions hearing or the appeal?
TIA,
vg_future
revlis, thanks. That is exactly what I was saying. The core portfolio is very much in tact (for that matter even these patents are very much valid and enforceable...in the worst case maybe not on NOK..that is all). These guys, under the cover of presenting perspective, are only trying to scare long term holders..out of their shares maybe....I am really doubting their intentions here....it is definitely not straight forward.
-vg_future
I do respect perspectives as long as they show some balance..not with such a heavy slant towards negativity. What do you mean by tomorrow teaching lesson....don't you think how the investors over here know how a news would cause stock movements? The problem is the way you are putting it....it is not helping...it is only showing the negative side without any perspective to balance it out on the other side.
-vg_future
my3sons87, I agree. The only reason I tried to pull QCOM into this is I am tired of these QCOMies playing expert role here and predicting the gloom when it is not there.
-vg_future
JeffreyHF, if you try to come out of your QCOM mindset, you would also understand that this is the not the core of IDCC's licensing portfolio. Listen to what WM said in the CC. IDCC is not so stupid (as you guys are trying to portray) to put all its portfolio at stake....oh! I forgot for QCOM, it is foreplay but for IDCC it is lifeplay.
Everybody agrees that there will be some knee jerk reaction though there is a chance that this could be overturned by commission, but, it is not the doom and gloom as you guys are trying to paint....I don't know what you are trying to get out of this exercise.
Try your bashing somewhere else.
JMHO,
vg_future
The same number as in the case of QCOM when QCOM lost to NOK at ITC.
-vg_future
Some of the QCOM guys (I stress, not all...so, you know who you are) educating us here should know that QCOM lost to NOK at ITC, but, had the Delaware case ongoing and settled on the day of hearing. I know that QCOM had a pretty small (maybe insignificant) number of patents on which it lost at ITC, but, these experts didn't question the existing licencees issue in QCOM's case whereas their generosity is pouring here in saying that the world is doomed for IDCC.
Know the true longs and follow them....there are many short term traders here who are trying to portray a gloomy picture.
JMHO,
vg_future
Grones, thanks for the response. My intention is not to make you feel bad. I am sorry if I did so. I read your posts regularly and know that you are not one of the other posters. As you said, there will be some knee jerk reaction to the ruling, but, since the fundamentals are so strong at this point I am expecting it to hold after some initial sell off.
Goodluck to all longs...and hoping for some news to stop any bleeding tomorrow.
-vg_future