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.
WayHaw, the entire market was in a rally beginning about that time as well though
ellismd, I'd think very carefully about continueing with this course of action. I'm not a lawyer but we need to think of the possible negatives of an action besides the positives we hope to see. There are two main, possible positives I see;
1) Short-term rise in price as we bring more public attention to IDCC and the prospects of a victory. Most of the new money in the stock that might enter, IMO, woulld be short-term minded, speculative money. Traders could do well. Longs could use the opportunity to increase their shares taking advantage of the highs and lows. Anyone buying in anticipation of selling after a story driven spike damn sure has no reason to heap critisism on whatever they think management has done in the past. Buy and hold longs probably would not enjoy the gut wrenching ride.
2) Increase pressure on ERICY, through public opinion and possible short-term pressure on stock price, to settle. IMO not likely to have the effect desired. ERICY has shown for 10 years that they are pretty tough, long-term minded and will make decisions based on whether they think they can win or not. Could ratchet up pressure on other infringers to settle but IMO that would not happen either. IMO, they have decided that the safest course is to get the same rate as everyone else rather than gamble on getting a lower rate early but risking paying much more if they are wrong.
Possible negatives;
1) Not likely that public display of the evidence will help IDCC at all in a trial. IMO, most here are for the long term and would not sell on the rise gained from a WS story. The potential for a news release announcing the settlement we've been anticipating, could come at any hour. Most longs would not want to miss out and those overextended on margin would not likely have learned from their past experiances. They especially would not enjoy the roller coaster.
2) ERICY could seize on the predudicial nature of the published information as reasons for denying the admission of that information. Remember that we have seen a number of legal things done in the past that we didn't understand. Who knows what little could cause an adverse ruling? This potential could possibly also affect IDCC. Do we know whether or not IDCC would consider the release of the information helpful? If not, they might feel they have to settle for less than they wanted rather than go to trial.
These are the things I see. What do you think will happen? What could happen? How would you feel and what would you do in either case.
Could public reporting of this information be considered prejudicial?
Loop, Thanks for the reply and I apologise. I obviously missed the part about it involving Harris instead of IDCC. That's the danger of skipping over some of the past posts. Regardless, your response was a help.
goblue, thanks. EOM
Loop, Your response that DNS means that the parties did not settle; is that an opinion or rather do you know for a fact that that what it means. I don't mean to challenge you but rather it is only for my own clarification. If it's a fact, what is your analysis? Is mediation dead? Possibly ongoing? Trial only step left? TIA
Summary probably took 10 hr.s to prepare. My guess
DNS - Dispute now settled?
Dispute near settlement?
osoesq, I agree with your view that the associates would continue working their end. What I'm curious about is; if the associates were ready for trial before it was reset, what would these new pacer entries be for? What in your opinion would be required now that wasn't dealt with before?
One thing just jumped in my head as I was reading your reply to Loop. It seems like it's been discussssed enough; the potential collusion between the European wireless manufacturers to deny IDCC royalties in the hope that they might dry up and blow away. It seems evident enough to me that NOK took advantage of the situation and got a free pass on past 2G for the price of TDD engineering work. They needed the TDD IPR and it keeps Siemens from having too great an advantage. If ERICY looses, they are still up on everyone else since the others will have to pay much more in the long run for TDD and some will still owe for 2G. Additionally, I think that NOK is also still hoping that they will get away with not paying IDCC for 3G or only paying just a little.
The thought I just had though is: Is it possible that IFX (read Siemens)is puposely delaying chip development in hopes that IDCC looses against ERICY? The delay would be part of the overall collusion in weakening IDCC. Perhaps also, if ERICY were to prevail, IDCC would be in a position that they might have to give IFX technology at a bargain price in order to remain finacially healthy until they can get some licencees for 3G. This scenario matches what seems to have been happening for years. (IMO it's unlikely that IDCC would get near as good a rate for 3G if they loose as they would if they win. I believe the manufactures would make IDCC sue for a rate that was higher than the manufacturers collectively thought was "fair and reasonable") I know this is a crazy idea, but who would have thought that we would have seen some of the things that HAVE happened.
That being said, I favor the view that ERICY will settle and IDCC will finally recieve it's just due.
OT: mscere, A comment on the artible you posted about Hutchison Whampoa's Li Ka-shing. The article seems to portray puzzlement over his pouring of billions of dollars into 3G telecom at this particular juncture but it made me think of a rather obvious strategy Li Ka-shing may be employing.
By forging ahead with 3G developement and implementation, Ka-shing is ratcheting up the pressure on the competition to match his investment or be left behind, either of which could be their demise. If they try to match spending rather than wait and conserve capital, they risk going broke before 3G brings enough revenue to make them profitable or breakeven. If they go broke and file for bankruptsy, Hutchison Whampoa would possibly be the only corporation financially strong enough to step in and pick up the failed telecom provider(AND spectrum licences) at fire sale prices. Hutchison Whampoa has already invested in other European teleco's. Even these investments have been at discount prices as stock prices are very low and they are reeling from the weight of their own investments. If the competition decides to wait, Hutchison Whampoa could gain such a head start, the competition can't catch up. Lacking the revenues to continue, they might decide to write off their losses and sell their assets (again at deep discounts) or accept Hutchison Whampoa as a partner at a much lower price than they would like.
Either way Ka-Shing becomes "Ka-Ching!". He spends a lot up front, but in the end, he becomes THE dominant 3G player at a far lower cost than he could have otherwise.
snowblow5, I agree with you. I, of course could be wrong with my theory but regardless of whether IDCC wanted to prevent the investing public from percieving a connection between the ERICY litigation outcome and it's influence on future events, the perception IS there for many anyway.
snowblow5, I have long believed that IDCC has kept the ERICY situation low key, hence the "hush-hush". There would be several interelated reasons. In a nutshell though, IMO, they don't want ERICY, their industry peers (potential and current licensees), and the general public to believe that EVERYTHING rides on the outcome of their litigation. This would give ERICY too much leverage in negotiations. Of course, as we get closer to a resolution, one way or the other, that situation is becoming a growing reality. Just a theory but I believe it is something of a reflection of similar thoughts expressed by others here. There are others reasons as well, I'm sure.
OT: snowblow5, with all due respect, IMO, Once is the only one here that is responsible for other board members' attitude toward him. He has for years delighted in waving a red flag in front of the bulls just to anger and frustrate them. I too appreciate hearing the negatives along with the positives but not when the only purpose is rhetorical exercise. Most don't have time for that, particularly when it is with someone who tends to offend your sensibilities. Bottom line, most are here for DISCUSSION while, IMO, Once is only here for ARGUMENT. If you like that, great! DannyD is only saying he doesn't want to be part of it and would prefer that members use the "respond" button so he doesn't have to participate. Seems like a reasonable request to me.
Corp_Buyer, Yours are some excellent proposals. These do not fall under the characterization of "shareholder revolt" which I also would not support but are rather constructive ideas for improving the relationship between the BOD and the ones they are supposed to be serving. If you've got more ideas on how to effectively accomplish this, I'd like to hear them.
I also am cautious about any action that could upset in any way the current proceeding agaist ERICY. I will say however that I have noticed for several years, whenever the ASM is approaching, there has been some dissent brewing, often times over this same subject, and there ends up being some event happening (one year there was much speculation that a settlement was imminent) that causes everyone to hold back until the outcome is known, or a new licencee is announced. If my recollection is correct, it was later after the end of the ASM that we learned that the terms of the license agreement were not nearly as favorable as we thought at first. Unfortunately, by that time management had gotten what it wanted. (Perhaps rightly so!)
One final note: I know that there are those that will attack me as an IDCC basher. I am not. I am long IDCC as I can afford. I hesitate to discuss these thoughts and opinions because of the extreme responses they generate. If I don't see more than a few that agree or at least want to continue this thread, I will drop the subject for sure.
We have our first volunteer! LOL
Actually, I truely welcome dissenting opinions. Your post was very good and certainly helped provide a fuller and more proper perspective to anyone who is upset by managements actions (or the lack thereof). Best of all, you provided it without disdaining or ridiculing the position you were posting against. That's effective communication. People listen when a point is well presented without aggression or malice. People also learn from seeing things done well and your post should serve as an example to others for improved communication amongst the members of this board,
If anyone did consider continueing the discussion, I would hope that someone with your approach would participate since it would provide balance and help foster better decisions. It is likely that at least many will agree with you that the task is too formidable. That said, if there are enough interested parties, I will participate in discussion to see if there is reason to proceed. Thanks!
"Go as far as you can see and then you can see farther""
rmarchma, I believe that one reason that there is not more response to your excellent post concerning management's decisions about their own compensation and shareholder communication is that many probably do recognize the difficulty in organizing enough shareholders to do anything about it. I have great respect for Dannyd as I know he is knowledgeable and experienced in the ways of Wallstreet. I would have to say that I agree with virtually his entire response to you. His post illustrates why management is able to act completely unfettered when deciding their remuneration.
Still, logical action is preceded by thought and discussion. You have provided the food for thought and the impetus for discussion with your revealing posts. The next step would be, as Danny pointed out, a plan for action. As Danny also pointed out, the final plan would have to have a reasonable chance of success because it would be quite an undertaking with many complications, most that have not even been thought of yet. There would be vehement resistance from some IDCC longs that might feel justified in fearing that any action against management would undermine their own personal long time interest as shareholders. They also may feel that management is no more than fairly compensated or that the amount of communication with shareholders is more than adequate. As teecee and some others have pointed out, it would also likely be something of a moot point if, as we hope, the ERICY situation is resolved soon. I don't think that occurrence would make the compensation more equitable but it would be difficult to generate any interest in further discussions. The issues over shareholder communications may be better understood after that point as well. I certainly hope so. On the other hand, if we do not prevail over ERICY, I think that you will suddenly find tremendous interest in this subject.
I don't have Danny's experience with Wallstreet but I do personally agree with you that there are serious issues that should be addressed by management. Some time back, Loop interjected his opinion that I believe reflected some of the same concerns that you have been bringing up. At that time he called for all to give the case with ERICY time to resolve itself and if it didn't, he supported taking further action. (Correct me if I an mistaken, Loop.) While it has been a while since he gave that opinion, I still concur since it is likely that we will settle or go to trial somewhere in just over 3 months. I don't think the subject should be dropped though because we may soon find more interest that we have today. Perhaps, with IHUB's flexible venue, the issues can be discussed between those with an interest with occasional updates to the general board membership so as to not overly involve those that have no interest in the matter. Let me know what you think of this proposition. Any readers who feel this is a issue they would have interest in should express themselves as well. . Any reasons for opposition to this idea should be voiced as well since each of our thoughts should be clarified by as much information and as many opinions as possible.
Just a few of the questions for ourselves that require answers: Can we create a climate that gets management's attention without damaging our interest? (Personally, on this issue, I believe so. I can't see where trying to bring management's compensation into line or improving shareholder communications could hurt the share price.) Are there enough interested parties to be willing to spend the time and work for a solution? Since many would benefit, should there be compensation for the few that perform the service if in fact some plan of action is reached (is anyone willing to do it for free? How would we cover the other cost? I can probably donate a few hours a week of secratarial work.)? How would we agree on a plan of action? Any that have ideas of their own should feel free to offer them, as all will be welcome.
Ronnie, we'll see what kind of response there is to this post and then we'll know what the next step is.
mschere, I don't know how you find the time to gather all the interrelated information that you do, but it certainly is a great service to the rest of us longs. Thanks!
Micky, As far as I can remember, you normally insert in your post that is is your opinion. If you post a rumour, you state that it is so. In both cases, a reader should be sophisticated enough to consider those facts if he should decide to act on what you posted. If he isn't, it's likely that person will soon find that he/she should not involve themselves in the stock market.
Over the years, you have posted many very compelling reasons for your enthusiasim. Many of your arguments have been novel and/or original. IMO you should continue posting as long as you continue to be diligent about the nature of your sources.
good post Bill.
CLS, funny and right on.
Bob, I personally think your solution will work.
Amen!
Jimlur, regardless of whatever my views are considering this board and the ability of bashers and disrupters to post on it, I believe you already know the appreciation I have for all you've done for all IDCC longs. I might not even still own IDCC if it were not for the information I got from the old club board. Thanks again.
teecee, If enough people return to the old site, that's where I'll be. I'm like you. Once is only here for the sick pleasure of disrupting what we have.
Teecee, I hesitate to get into a discussion with you on this because the last thing I want is a pizzing contest. However, what if it doesn't go to $100 or $0? If it ends up some where in between, and the management ended up dumping their collective 100's of thousands of shares, might the IDCC longs be continueing to wait for theirs (as the share price might falter) while the exec.s enjoyed their good fortune?
I have no problem with executive compensation. The question is, are the powers granting themselves excessive compensation. What do you think? Do you think that the level of options grants is equitable based on Ronny's post?
I've got to go as I have some meetings. I'll check you later.
OT: Witchhollow, I appreciate your response. Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems that this view ignores the subject of Ronnys post. When I posted in response to Ronny, It was not due to unhappiness over the stock price. (I'M happy as I'm in for the long haul but if I had to sell today, I'd be ahead) If institutional holders thought that the SUBJECT MATTER OF RONNY'S POST was of no concern, well, I guess I don't understand enough about their thought processes and so be it. As for my cries or those of other individual shareholders, I agree, they should not regard them.
(sorry for the caps. I'm not trying to be overly emphatic. I can't seem to get the italics feature to work)
OT: well enough. Since I don't understand it, I will ignore it. You're right, we don't need hard feelings as we're all here for the same purpose and if you look back at all my prior post, you'll see that my interest and yours are closely aligned. Good luck.
teecee, I'm not clear on the meaning of your response to my post. What do you mean when you say they will "see these cries for exactly what they are for"?
OT: Boogie, good luck. I hope that for you, IDCC's situation is resolved soon and you don't have to worry about it one way or another
teecee, of course, your right. When this issue came up for discussion before the ASM, I was concerned. I wish Ronny has assembled his information and posted it then because it is very enlightening. I'm not so sure that if Ronny's findings were presented to the institutional holders, they wouldn't vote against management on this one. The dilutive effect on shareholder value is quite strong and it effects them as well. Of course one could simply sell his shares and not worry about it but I believe that there are a number of longs that wouldn't go so quietly while these relative newcomers continue enriching themselves. Perhaps this portrayal of management isn't fair but that is why I suggested entering into discussions with management over the subject. Even though I made the suggestion, I realize the unlikelyhood of any thing happening. Nevertheless, this matter should not go away as it is one that deserves discussion.
Ronny, I want to sincerely thank you for preparing this information and presenting it in the weel laid out manner that you did. I am going tp print and save your post and I will give it more thought. You have made it very clear, at least to me, that the executive that have been deciding their share of the company have been overly generous. (other descriptions come to mind)I definitely think that it is time for the shareholders to band together and address this issue with management. If the shareholders are not granted the opportunity for reasonable discussion of the matter then we should explore whatever other options we have. In light of your post, Amsag's indignation over insider selling does not seem unreasonable. Thanks again and excellent post.
I had the very same thought as you. Excellent proposition! (Though I hate that one be forced to buy a subscription in order to do so)
This past week has been one of the best periods for excellent and substantive discussion I've seen since I've followed this stock.
There is one thing about thise latest twist (trial delay) that makes me very comfortable. There was some very serious selling in the first ten minutes of the day as noted by teecee (200,000 shares) and yet there were buys waiting at the support of $14.50/70 level ready to pick up the shares. Bill Daglish refered to the "disciplined investor" that is not caught up in "fear and greed". That disciplined group has been present for weeks and has been steadily accumulating at approx. this level. Look back at the charts and you will see several examples where waves of selling have been absorbed every time the price got down to about this level. GE-jim has already made note of this group. This group is not chasing the stock upwards either. (though they may be doing some selling in the mid-sixteens to hold the stock in this trading range) I don't have any idea whether we are headed to trial or that there is a settlement in the works, as so many of the arguments for either version are very plausible, but I am very comfortable that there are buyers with deep pockets that are patientlyly waiting to buy at the current level. They certainly believe that, whatever the outcome, it will be positive.
sjratty, Aren't there a lot of other 2G patents held by IDCC that were not dealt with in the MOT trial? I was under the impression that most of the patents involved in the ERICY suit were not included in the MOT trial. If ERICY was found to infringe different patents than those in the MOT trial, wouldn't that then relate to MOT? Also, wasn't the MOT trial for US sales only? IDCC patents were upheld in Europe. Would those rulings not affect MOT in light of a ERICY loss? I'm not an attorney and so I rely on the opinions of those more expert in legal matters such as yourself. TIA
Loop, This conversation about insuder sales is very interesting. you guys keep it up.
Question: If an insider had "timed" his sale to take advantage of when he speculated a settlement would occur and then later changed his mind because it turned out his timing was incorrect, wouldn't he be guilty of trading on insider information? It seems it would totally negate the purpose of the 10b-5 plan the company had in place. It seems like this is different than the case of the CEO that abandoned the plan to satisfy shareholders.
Please don't think I'm being argumentative. I want you to know that of all the IDCC posters, you IMO, have been almost invariably right on. Your analysis of the subjects you post on are both insiteful and brilliant.
witchhollow, I agree. Also, if ERICY were to belly up, the handset and infrastructure sales that were lost by ERICY would be picked up by someone else. After IDCC wins a victory against ERICY that was the source of ERICY's demise, I believe most would not want to follow ERICY's lead and infringe but would rather pay IDCC whatever was fair. MO
spider69, You just expressed my sentiments exactly. I'm skeptical though. Will wait and see.
"Well, this will be the test for this board in my opinion, the Once's of the world have ruined many a board. Hopefully they will be policed over here. Nothing wrong with anyone posting as long as they have something constructive to say."
ed, I'm trying to figure out how to use the "ignore" feature for the same reason as you but can't find instructions. Can you help?