SOG, i think it's great we have a deal with Virgin, but we still don't know the revenue model. Nor do we know it from airclick [yet]. What is so "neet' about it so far - other than it exists?

Realize that, thanx, but do they all go to the 5th Circuit?

Corp Buyer, according to my read of Olddog, the circuits seem to be organized geographically vice by subject or type of law, so the answer to your question seems to be "NO". I could be wrong.

I find things like this difficult to believe or give any credibility to. OK, so the going may get tough...

But the part that destroys the credibility is that QCOM has been in the 39-40 channel all week. Started the day 50 cents of so away from the 12 month target, and these bozos rate that a buy? So we should all jump out and buy QCOM for the 50 cents gain over the year?

Even the social security IRR is better than that.

osoesq, what does this mean? We either 'got lucky' or were very shrewd in going to the 5th circuit?

Why would each circuit have its own 'law/rules/etc.' for interpreting cases??

Is each circuit a 'maverick' venue not utilizing or considering the other circuits actions?

Question on MFL: If such contracts are always “secret” and prevented from being published [as to rates, etc.] how is it anyone can invoke them [except discovery by espionage or rmarchma backing into it with his analysis]? Or does IDCC, QCOM, et al, advise the licensee and not us [the owners]? Why is this such a secret to us, but apparently not the industry? Why would they need to redact the license in order to publish?
Anyone? TIA.

ss, I know we will know more about the deal, but do we know anything as to WHY Mobot sold out?

Any skinny on if Mobot was in financial trouble? Selling out for 11MM seeks a tad light. EXCELLENT deal for NEOM going forward.

Posted before I read the retort.

I'm American and i did not get it either.

??

Mobot deal is GREAT news. Now that the planets are aligned, we need to see some actual REVENUES.

12 -No, his point was that the tower companies stand to gain because of the continuing rollout and increased bandwidth requirements of telecom generally. The companies mentioned will do well in his opinion. Tantivy will do well if, and only if, service providers use their solutions. Cramers point was that because of the bandwidth required, more antennas will need to be placed on these towers, for which they will pay rent to the tower companies. It had next to nothing to do with Tantivy solutions - unless of course, Tantivy also owns/operates a boatload of towers.

12B's, Cramer said that these tower companies will do well because they will "rent" out space on their existing towers. He also said that development of 'new' towers is NOT where to be because of the higher costs. I don't think these companies are antenna makers, just tower space landlords. In fact one co. was classified as a REIT. Sounded to me like there was no real interplay with Tantivy.

pvc, IDCC won an arbitration - a step below a court verdict - and NOK are challenging the result in court. I'm no legal eagle either, but I think it tends to confirm that a court verdict - not mediation, arbitration, etc. - not only would hold up better, but also raise a bar to other infringers.

Beacon, CORRECT on the issue of getting an actual judgement in court. That is the absolute BEST outcome. While some prefer a negotiated settlement, I have temper my thoughts on the IDCC/NOK debacle right now. I thot I saw you post over at IDCC board, so I think you might be a tad more familiar with the issues. I also use this example to differ with your other thought that, "I doubt whether any compamny would enter litigation just because their ego's are dented." I refute with the NOK case. NOK did the same basic 'cry in the milk' and a host of other scortched earth tactics / routine and continues to this day.
Anyway, BEST case is a court verdict. Shuts, or at least have the tendence to shut everyone else down.

Then one man's convergence is another's divergence? Sounds like P&G is "diverging" its ad budget, no?

Or, is the PC an example of "convergence' from yesteryear? I don't know, but if I read Penny right, he was looking for some clarity in the seemingly endless sea of information all about cellphones and such, much of which does not really apply to us, except in a huge macro way.

I look at it a tad more synergistically - the leverage of technologies being consolidated/merged/co-utilized. Separately, no big deal. Together - HUGE deal. Perhaps this would be a "convergence" - synergy? Phone/PC/WWW/marketing. ?

No hard feelings. He said Austrailia's FY and wanted to know FY for US [or so I thought]. Not necessarily for NEOM accounting. ?

Not much of an argument anyway. But it would only matter for government funding and programs [that capitalize on these technoligies, perhaps - like US government moving to use RFID tags in logistics?].

Perhaps you could refresh us all on this "convergence"? I don't think I completely understand it either.

You are correct. But since he asked for the US fiscal year, I rtesponded with the Fiscal year of the US, which is as I stated.

Beacon, FY in United States is 1 Oct thru 30 Sep.

Hope this helps. Or at least gets you clarified?

"With the huge popularity of cell phones increasing, will pay phones be needed in the future?"
YES, to accomodate the less fortunate among us that cannot or will not get cell phones; those that have crappy plans [roaming, fees, etc]; those that lost or forgot their phone that day; and those [fill in a reason].
Do we still have paper in this [technologically possible] paperless world? Now more than ever.

OK, a little more serious question...
Are we seeing any revenues from IFX? 10 year deal has, what, 6 years left to go [or so]?

"Why do we need a media contact when no media sources are being contacted."
Same reason that we needed a COO perhaps?

"Don't you dare insult me again. if you want to, come to New Jersey and say it to my face and don't hide behind your screen name...."

Boy, o boy, I'm shaking in my boots just reading that.
Especially coming from someone ALSO hiding behind a screen name.
Literally LOL.

Admittedly, I don't know much about the margins, etc. of the fixed payphone business, but there is synergy here if they can use all these locations to support the wireless buildout to get LA as a huge 'hot spot'!

I just hope this all has taught folks at IDCC to write some "better" PLAs. I realize this current may have been necessary for survival, but ...
NOT NO MO.

IMO

zip, I see this as a huge mosaic. Technically, you are correct. I simply reiterate that NOK is hell bent on fighting tooth and nail in an attempt to "invalidate" everyone else's patents. Please don't take "invalidate" as a legal term in my discourse. They are trying to render them all 'meaningless'. So far, they have delayed to their benefit with IDCC. They got TDD for essentially 'free' and got the rest a half off [so far]. They want to limit the royalties and will stop at nothing to do so - Item: recent EU issue on the subject [which they 'lost' here in the first round], the sabre rattling with QCOM over reducing Qs 5% buys all mentality, and the IDCC delays and raodblocks - which also signals many other 'small' players.
Someone posted quite some time back that the OEMs all have cross-licsensing deals in place to get IPR at zero cost. Don't know if that is true, but they don't seem to be screaming about ERICY, MOT, et al.

zip, I have to disagree. The issue IS about patent validity in the end. From that flow the licsense and the revenues, which NOK seems intent on not coughing up. That to me is why they are in court trying to pre-empt our 3g patents 'before' they 'use' them. that seems to be why they are throwing everything - including the kitchen sink - into all this. I'm no lawyer, but something tells me that they will succeed in some way on these fronts. Hell, they already seem to be.

Loop, while I think we ALL agree with your [emotional] disgust, the fact of the matter is that in the final analysis, or at least the analysis to date, is that NOK PROFITS from delay, unethical business conduct and the associated misdirection and obfuscation. Many of us have said so in the past and trust me, I do feel your frustration.

How ironic that 6 short years ago, NOK was touted as savior and big brother to help smite the mighty ERICY. Now we come to find they suckered us in.

half of what they owed!

I know we will have to ferrett it out, just would be nice for them to announce.

But, the mere fact that revenues are tied to this bodes EXTREMELY well pre launch :)

REVENUES! I like it.
Now if we could only find out how much - from Virgin and AirClick.

CorpBuyer, I am having more and more trouble with your point on the "monetary award" issue. Please enlighten me as to the difference you think a fixed award versus an award of the rate. I see them both as virtually the same and what we got [a determined rate] as actually better - no room to say that the rate is wrong because of the number of units, type of thing, over which NOK could quibble anyway. I see it as a "Monetary award" by reference or calculation. What is the real difference?

Moxa, dilution is dilution. It means that a share is worth less as a percentage of OWNERSHIP, irrespective of price. That someone said the following, "When you say "dilute," I don't understand what you mean. We have doubled the share count since I became CEO, yet the stock price is up 17 fold, for a market cap increase of more than 34x. Is that dilution? I don't believe so. If, by doubling the outstanding shares again, we can drive the stock price to north of $1 (pre-split), that is a very good thing for our shareholders. We will continue to look at accretive acquisitions to boost shareholder value." tells me that they may not have clearly understood or understood the question or answered a question out of context.

ifitlooks, thanx for that link. Great start to the day.

loop, thx for reply. I tend to agree but there is this nagging thought that the folks that accused our management of illegalities regarding stock buys, complained in a motion that IDCC was a pesky little litigation hungry beast and used an internet chat board post [heresay?] in a court filing will not try to do SOMETHING to fight this award.

olddog, thx for your reply. While I believe any appeal/challenge, etc is without merit, it will not surprise me if NOK pushes along these lines anyway. From their chair, they have little to lose and the possibility of further gains.

Loop, is there ANY evidence or documents that NOK was denied from presenting or the arb panel refused to examine? This could be the basis of a challenge, I believe.
I think rmarchma and maybe others [?] intimated that the E/SNE deal created an MOU to be used for 3g. If NOK asked for such a beast to be used as evidence, and was SOMEHOW refused [if it exists], then it would seem that this would form the basis of an otherwise valid challenge/appeal/protest of the decision.

Also, is it possible that the arb panel ruled or decided something that was not put before them, thus creating another basis for a challenge/appeal/protest of the decision?

Hardball, I think Purple intimated it was good if NOK who is now selling 200 units @.75 [profit] to us, we would be better off if:
NOK was only going to be selling 100 @1.00 and SOMEONE ELSE picked up the NOK loss of volume - @1.00. That is how I [and a few others] understood his take. Neither company got the big volume break – both paid at the high[er] rate. I also believe his post was in context of someone reporting that NOK sales avenues were being reduced [Best Buy/Circuit City/others?].
Don't you think it would be better to have multiple customers each paying a higher rate than one big one at a very low rate.
This also makes you less dependant on the big guy.

Isn't that why we filed in court - to enforce the award? This had to happen. It will just take a little longer than expected as it gives NOK yet another legal areana in which they challenge - and delay.