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.
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
Grones, not to be critical, but, you do understand that your hope is basically expecting many longs on this board to go through lot of pain of seeing their investments take a major hit, right? I am not qualifying you as one of the other posters who, without stating their intention, start posting the negative stuff in a hope to get in cheap....btw, with close to $3 revenue that would give a multiple of less than 6 (which is very very very conservative...on the verge of stealing shares). I have read many of your earlier posts....so, I definitely know that you are not one of those guys. Please don't misunderstand me.
-vg_future
JimLur, with NOK's nature I wouldn't doubt a bit that they would appeal the decision, but, the ban could be in effect during the appeal which might push them to settlement.
JMHO,
vg_future
NukeJohn, I posted your post regarding the TSRA reversal (in reference to IDCC's loss) at ITC from the RMBS board on this board without checking with you. Sorry about that, I didn't know that you could post here. Thanks for the other post.
-vg_future
All, please recognize your well wishers. There are some "so called" tech experts who are dropping in to say that other licensees will start acting up because of this. What they don't acknowledge is that there is no guarantee that this ruling is going to stand. Yesterday I posted the example of Tessera's case to prove this.
I have so many good words to describe these guys....but, I am holding off just to maintain the sanity on this board.
-vg_future
From RMBS board regarding the ITC reversal : Thanks to NukeJohn on that board
Tessera appealed the ALJ's ruling which came out in late Nov 2008. They appealed and the ITC Commission decision was scheduled to come out in March (as I recall). The decision was delayed because there was a decision by the CAFC in the interim in another case (Kyrocera) that changed what the ITC could do with a limited exclusion order (after the Kyrocera ruling they couldn't stop the importation of downstream products). In this case, I would not expect a delay and I would expect the ITC Commissions final ruling in about 3 months (I haven't found a specific schedule on this, but one probably exists).
The patents were apparently found to be valid, but they were not found to infringe. This is excatly what Judge Essex found in the Tessera case that was overturned by the ITC Commission. We should stay tuned.
JMHO,
NJ
This was in response to a question regarding IDCC's PR saying that it would appeal the ALJ's decision.
-vg_future
Some people need to learn how to keep their mouths shut. Panicking on the board doesn't really help. If you held this long, you better know how to hold it longer.
JMHO,
vg_future
old news. Not related to IDCC.
-vg_future
okay whatever floats the boat.
-vg_future
nokiashill, I was only thinking that if one holds for the settlement, the wife can get a nice car (a little more than the outfit) too....just kidding.
Anyway, just checking...thanks for the response.
-vg_future
nokiashill, are you backing off from your settlement predictions? Why would you take something off the table when settlement is in the works?
-vg_future
romuluss, I think you are attributing too much of significance (in fact being on the verge of "what happens if there is no outcome by this date") to 7th/8th of Aug. Everybody understands that the ALJ has mentioned the date as a preferred date to hear something before he starts his lengthy process of finalizing the ID, but, complex negotiations can and do take longer and this process could run into Aug 14th (however, it has to be before then or else ALJ will issue the ID). Just sit tight and see how it plays out.
JMHO,
vg_future
okay, thanks.
-vg_future
revlis, could it be SPRD? I am not sure what category that would fall into.
JMHO,
vg_future
loophole73, very well spoken. We were supposed to be over 35 (the last time I remember...when we used to have the healthy discussions on this board) with Samsung license and all of a sudden, now, we can hardly reach 40 even with a NOK license. It is amazing how the narrow minds keep pushing the fear factor.
Thanks for your balanced thoughts.
-vg_future
nokiashill, I will try...keeping my fingers crossed. I can't PM....living on free pass...no privileges.
--vg_future
nokiashill, thanks for the response. I was only going by the last 3 msgs that sounded cryptic.....as far as all the earlier messages are concerned...in IDCC world, barring few outright exceptions, it would be hard to decipher who has what connections. But, I have seen in the past that some rumors posted here and on yahoo msg board and atomicbob boards have come true.
JMHO,
vg_future
nokiashill, are you sending out cryptic messages?
-vg_future
nokishill, ?????. forgive my ignorance, what is this??
Are you referring to something in a cryptic fashion....maybe I am reading too much into this.
-vg_future
Thanks revlis, ellismd & techinvestor. EOM
JD GATOR, thanks for the detailed insight. My opinion was based on the info presented by the experts on this board. We have couple of weeks to find out if our opinion matches the staff's. However, as everybody is saying, this would be only part of the equation for the final settlement talks.
-vg_future
nicmar, IMHO, the staff decision/position would be different. I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion, but, I believe SAM and NOK are little different in this respect (maybe a lot different). Samsung claimed implied license (they never had one) and staff was sold on that argument whereas for NOK, the license was canceled/terminated by mutual consent from NOK & IDCC as a part of the $250+ mill settlement back in 2006. So, they cannot claim that they have an implied license when they explicitly canceled it. They have to look for a different defense in this regard.
JMHO,
vg_future
slacker711, yes, that too sounds like NOK. How many times did NOK get the boot in the courts with IDCC? Sounds promising for IDCC.
-vg_future
QCOM - BRCM settlement.....$891 mill....ITC loss is pretty dangerous...NOK! are you paying attention?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Qualcomm-and-Broadcom-Reach-prnews-15035345.html?.v=1
-vg_future
sonic22, I think the 20 mill is the net of Samsung money and a loss of 1.1 mill from another licensee who exited handset market.
From the PR
The expected increase of nearly $20 million over fourth quarter 2008 levels reflects the recognition of 2 ½ months of revenue under a new patent license agreement with Samsung signed in January 2009, partly offset by the loss of $1.1 million of fixed revenue amortization from a licensee who exited the handset business
-vg_future
triangle, yes it does...it includes 2 1/2 months of revenue minus the 1.1 mil amortization (total 20 mil) from earlier payment. However, from 2nd quarter onwards, this amount will be 25 mil.
-vg_future
Again, please give the complete picture if you can....they are pre-planned sales.
-vg_future
A simple check would reveal that the FORM 4s are for pre-planned sale and tax liability.
-vg_future
Data_Rox, good point about NOKIA being all WCDMA. I forgot about that. Thanks.
-vg_future
mickeybritt, yes, with all the stuff about SEC regulations, I bet WM will be careful (I think he is) when he uses numbers in the presentations.
-vg_future
Data_Rox, okay. Thanks.
I am only trying to say that Ronnie's numbers will be used start a debate as to what IDCC is getting vs what WM is claiming in the presentations.
Yes, but, wouldn't that count as per phone revenue in WM's presentations? All I am trying to say is that we cannot simply say that the per phone revenue is X based on just Samsung deal.
-vg_future