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.
revlis, Samsung being happy about this should be a confirmation that this whole thing of Samsung picking an option is just WHEN not IF.
JMHO,
vg_future
revlis, yes, I am of the opinion that Samsung blinked and we got the deal mostly on our terms. I would say between $1 and above per phone. We might be more closer to $2 if we consider any revenue from products which go as parts/solutions into each phone.
The PR could be just misrepresenting (lack of enough homework by the reporter) or over analysis of what IDCC has said in its official PR.
JMHO,
vg_future
pochemunyet, that bit is little confusing as I mentioned in my post. Anyway, it could be just misrepresentation of the facts in the PR.
-vg_future
From a PR this morning :
http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2008/11/24/daily17.html?ana=yfcpc
InterDigital in patent settlement with Samsung
Philadelphia Business Journal
InterDigital Inc. said Monday after the markets closed that it and Samsung Electronics Co. have signed a term sheet meant to settle their patent licensing disputes.
The King of Prussia, Pa., developer of wireless communications technology said the term sheet calls for it to grant the Korean mobile phone maker a royalty-bearing license covering Samsung’s sale of all 3G, or third-generation, products through 2012.
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) said the term sheet also gives Samsung about 45 days to choose between two options for paying royalties on sales of 2G products. If Samsung selects an option and early next year makes the first of a series of payments to InterDigital, InterDigital and Samsung will move to end their litigation and arbitration proceedings, InterDigital said.
3G wireless communication systems use digital signals and enable high-speed data transmission. 2G systems use solely digital signals and 1G systems use analog and digital signals.
This sounds like the options are only for the 2G product payments. This is little different than what I read on the first day of announcement.
-vg_future
Congrats All. Big implication for NOKIA and other big players. Ericsson should definitely do something now.
-vg_future
gattica, yes, one possible reason. Thanks.
-vg_future
8K help...plain English? anybody. Are they preparing for a buyout? Hopefully I am not seeing through rose colored glasses.
Action seems to be too close to the significant event in company's history.
TIA,
vg_future
lasttime there was a similar delay in QCOM's earnings, they announced NOK settlement. Probably, this is not a real delay, but, doesn't hurt to guess....
-vg_future
enyaw, probably nothing. But, the price seems a bit odd though.
-vg_future
enyaw, thanks. Is something going on. High of the day is below 20, how can the after hour trade be at 20.74. Just wondering...of course hoping too.
-vg_future
Gamco, thanks for that. The presentation was really good.
-vg_future
gman, JeffreyHF was saying that QCOM would get ongoing payments in addition to the fixed payments. It would be good (for general benefit) if the gurus who dissected (and still continue to) Apple's & LG's payment to IDCC can do the same thing to QCOM's payments. Anyway, probably this board might not be the appropriate stage for that.
-vg_future
Okay, thanks.
-vg_future
JeffreyHF, makes more sense, but, the press release is saying that it is recorded every quarter for 15 years. So, are you saying that they have fixed and variable aspect to their license?
TIA,
vg_future
Is NOK going to pay only 38.1 mill per quarter to QCOM? Am I missing something here or is this due to QCOM cross licensing with NOK?
2.29 billion for 15 years.
2290/60 close to 38.1 mill per quarter.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081016/business_us_nokia_qualcomm.html?.v=1
TIA,
vg_future
Thanks Olddog967, another interesting thing that I came across couple of months back is....in a particular case the ALJ went against the staff and hence the staff, along with the party that lost, applied the decision, but got rejected.
-vg_future.
revlis, that would put NOK's feet to the fire and could work as an goad for settlement. For Samsung, a fear of NOK settling earlier could do the trick. JMHO.
-vg_future
whizzeresq & revlis, looking at the way NOK is trying to avoid the ALJ, it seems like the staff might have gone totally against NOK (unlike in the case of Samsung). So, wouldn't it be useful if IDCC can bring them to ALJ sooner than later and not worry about Samsung judgement?
TIA
-vg_future
sailfreeee, thanks for the much needed laugh.
-vg_future
News on IDCC if you haven't seen it yet.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/03/viropharma-compuware-interdigital-pf-trades-in_dp_1003dailytrades_inl.html?partner=yahootix
-vg_future
Maybe OT, there is an interesting post from Mr. John Danforth (Rambus) on the investorvillage message board for RMBS. I am posting the link here because someone on this board said how RMBS is going through legal stuff like IDCC and also how govt. is handling some of the issues regarding justice enforcement.
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=266469&pt=msg&mid=5757831
Pretty long message though.
-vg_future
Thanks Gamco. EOM
-vg_future
Gamco, thanks. Is there a reason given for the cancellation?
TIA,
vg_future
ellismd, they look like late settlements. Look at the price range for today.
21.75 - 24.79
JMHO,
vg_future
gio, certainly seems like good NEWS. Now NOK will have to face the ITC....pretty hard for them after the way they treated the ALJ's orders.
Goodluck All!
vg_future
e500, I think it is jeffree (I hope I spelled his userid okay).
-vg_future
So, this Michael Cohen guy sat through the confidential hearing part and puts out a note that he is not confident about IDCC's position. Shouldn't there be a gag order on this guy? What's the guarantee that he isn't using any of the info during that confidential time frame and what's the guarantee that he isn't actually twisting it to fit his needs. I know that IDCC can't comment on research notes, but, shouldn't they take this back the ALJ and show him what's being done with the info?
JMHO,
vg_future
Eli/gatticaa, I wouldn't expect her to say anything more. Sometimes it could be very specific like we are waiting on an update from some or one of our licensees...or else it is going to be a blanket statement like "we will provide it when we have it" (I would venture as far as....even if there is something in the works..JMHO)
Eli, thanks for the update.
-vg_future
Desert Dweller, I agree that the "yet to be realized" long term potential is the biggest positive and the strongest pulling force of this stock. As I said in my other post, I didn't like the negative tone with which the post started (it kind of shadowed the rest of the analysis in the post) as it tends to attract the obvious usual suspects that play down IDCC's potential. With the typical over analysis on this board, it tends to end up in the questioning of IDCC's license agreements and management's public statements regarding the royalties.
We all will be nicely rewarded in the near future and we can look back at these trying moments with a smile. Good luck to you too. Have a great weekend.
-vg_future
rmarchma, thanks for clarification. Though the rest of your original post about the earnings prediction tried to present the analysis, the way the post started kind of ticked me off. It definitely attracts the crowd that looks for an opportunity to play down IDCC's potential. The next thing we know is that they are questioning and doubting IDCC's license agreements and management's credibility. I would go with the management, particularly when they are at a crucial juncture of the war with the scumbags of the industry, regarding IDCC's earnings potential and the cumulative per unit royalty rates.
Anyway, as you said, we develop a balanced outlook when the emotional aspect of the investment is cut off. JMHO, $18 would have been an excellent entry point even without another tier 1.
-vg_future
DesertDweller, I am not portraying a conspiracy theory here. All I am saying is that the tone changed. Now that he is out of the stock, he is putting forward his objective opinions. The simple fact is that with IDCC there are definite unknowns (either because of self imposed or licensee imposed limitations...Apple is one good example) without taking those into consideration he simply says "IDCC earnings don't look good". What is he trying to say? When he was a shareholder he was touting the potential of IDCC and now, when IDCC is actually on the verge of a major turning point, all those things are gone and he has seen the light.
JMHO,
vg_future
Thanks olddog967 for speaking the obvious. Projecting or taking a shot at calculating revenues is one thing, but, giving it a spin as if IDCC is doomed is pure agenda, of course JMHO. The heading of that post is supposed to raise doubts in investors minds (his headings were never like those, again as far as I can remember, when he was invested in here) and weakens the rest of the analysis in the post. I appreciate the information that he is trying to share, but, the intentions are pretty doubtful. He is clearly ignoring any positive impact from iphone and RIMM.
-vg_future
olddog967, yes, I forgot to mention that. Thanks.
-vg_future
sinnet14, don't read too much into it. It is an automatic tax withholding. And the other sale that you are referring to is an pre-planned/programmed sale. Not much to second guess there. Just relax.
jmho,
vg_future
Thanks nokiashill for the update. It is a tax withholding sale of 198 shares. That shows confidence.
-vg_future
Regarding the Sep 25 calls, the open interest hasn't changed much, so, I think that somebody who sold the calls earlier is closing the position (for whatever reason...it could be fear of shares getting called....or to limit the loss if they were naked calls). Or the calls are just changing hands because the change in the open interest isn't significant enough.
JMHO,
vg_future
Some interesting action in Sep 30 calls. A big chunk (2500) went through.
-vg_future
JimLur, I could be wrong, but, I thought that the Samsung lawyers said IDCC is asking twice than what they are offering (not others).
-vg_future
revlis, thanks for that. From the bolded sentence of the article, it is possible that IDCC will be paid and since this happened recently (Samsung switching to infineon chips), we should be seeing revenue in the coming quarters from these chips as well. That must be some significant revenue from Samsung phones....why aren't our analysts seeing this link?????
-vg_future
robweis, I am no expert, but, here is my 2 cents....yes, it could push the PPS if they are naked calls....i.e.,the call seller sold calls for the stocks that he doesn't own....so, when the call holder exercises them (exchange them for calls) the call seller has to deliver the shares that he doesn't have.
-vg_future