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.
Yes, we both thought IDCC and Ericsson would probably settle but Mickey thought it would be for a billion or more, I thought it would be for $30 or $40 million. Looks like I had the amount right too. Mickey was off by over a factor of 10!
"He certainly got a LOT of PEPPER, for his views, but in the end he was very right. He always maintained that there wud be a SETTLEMENT, which was CORRECT."
Once
Bill, your site has always been wildly inaccurate. I did a little sleuthing here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000309073428/www.telecomtechstocks.com/focusstock/ratio.htm
and learned just how bad your vision of IDCC has been. Believe me when I say that you can't distance yourself from your inaccuracy simply by changing the URL of the site from telecomtechstocks.com to wirelessledger.com. Here is some of the laughable "information" you featured in 2000:
"There are different "risk to reward" factors in play now with a year end share price of $75 than in early November when the share price was $6. In some ways, InterDigital has a better risk-reward ratio now, even with the price up 1,544 percent from the beginning to the end of 1999.
"Although the IDC share price appreciated greatly in 1999, there were ample reasons -- strictly from fundamentals -- to justify that increase. Since the beginning of 1999, these very positive events have occurred:
InterDigital’s cash position has increased dramatically to a 3Q99 level of $78.6 million. (See: "Liquidity")
Current earnings are strong and potential earnings are extraordinarily robust. With only 48.8 million shares, it should be quite possible to generate $2 to $3 per share in earnings (up from the present $0.49 per share). At an average PE for telecoms of at least 60, that would translate into a potential IDC share price of $120 to $180. (See: "Earnings")"
"IDC has engineered a state-of-the-art wireless telecom demonstration chip with Texas Instruments. (See: "New ASIC Chips" and "Technology Risk")"
"A settlement with Ericsson Telephone is considered by many shareholders to have an 80% chance of completion by mid-2000 (The settlement amount expected by shareholders ranges all the way from $350 million - perhaps spread over five years - to the optimistic $1 billion.) (See: "Earnings Wild-card: Ericsson Litigation" and "Legal Risk")"
"Based on a year end 1999 share price of $75, many shareholders believe that the low end risk of the share price continuum is now perhaps $40 and the high end over the next 18 months may well be $120 to $180 (not guaranteed, of course, see risks). By these estimates, the risk-reward relationship can be estimated at a ratio of -40% to +250%."
Please spare us this embarrassment by refraining from associating the above website with this message board. IDCC investors have enough of an image problem without aggravating it by trying to pass off that kind of trash as wise investment advice.
Once
Loop, it's good to keep in mind that Merrill Lynch manages billions of dollars of investments so they are not adverse to spending what it takes to get reliable information. Their recent finding that IDCC only has a tiny amount of essential IPR is consistent with what I have learned from communications with others in the industry. It doesn't surprise me one bit.
As far as IDCC correcting the published "erroneous information", that's ridiculous. All IDCC has ever said is they believe they have essential IPR in all 3G standards. That's a lot different from stating it as a fact and exaggerating the amount as so many here like to do.
When all the dust settles I think many will be surprised just how little IDCC really has. Of course most will prefer to characterize it as a travesty of justice rather than admit that they were wrong about IDCC. That's what investors did when IDCC lost the Motorolla case in 1995 even though the verdict was essentially upheld through all possible legal appeals and multiple judges, etc.
Successful investors do not keep repeating the same mistakes over and over.
Once
Jim, this is unbelievable!
"Most here won't believe it but I was given Harry Campagna's home phone number(which I threw in the garbage) and told they were hearing a rumor that Harry was baldheaded and in a wheel chair and they wanted me to take a ride to his home and investigate it.
This rumor was from an ex-employee who we all know."
First, who would care if he was in a wheelchair or not? Next thing you know someone will claim he's fat! But more importantly, how many ex IDC employees do we have posting here? Just a few weeks ago I thought you said there were none but I could have remembered that wrong. Now we learn there is jmspaesq. I don't think he would be concerned about the rumor in question so there must be other ex-employees here.
Once
I don't appreciate you showing up here to accuse me of attacking someone and then vanishing when I ask you to disclose the attack. If it was such an attack then why don't you delete it and put me in jail?
"Just tread lightly, or you'll slip. I'm done here."
Hit and run...Pretty funny.
Once
Matt, I'm very impressed, now we have the owner of iHub standing in to vouch for Jim Lurgio even though you admit you do not know the facts behind the SEC disclosure! Very odd.
And you accused me of "attacking" Jim! Please show me where I did that! I never even said he did anything wrong! Next thing you know you will be silencing me with your heavy hand of censorship!
Once
Sailfreeee, Hollerz brought credible info to the board. Jim has yet to fully explain how he is listed in Interdigital's SEC documents. In light of the fact that Jim Lurgio has been a primary driving force and motivator behind interest in IDCC for many years now, I think we deserve to know more. If he has as much integrity as claimed then he should have no problem stepping forward with a full disclosure.
Anyone who doesn't see that is blinded by rhetoric.
Once
What are you babbling about Sonetirot? Please explain yourself.
Once
Jim, I could find no evidence of a "Blair Chrisite" associated with Interdigital. I did find a "Blair Christie" but it appears he bailed some time ago.
"I guess this guy thinks he's a Coloumbo. If it wasn't for the investors of the past there would be no company today. For the great risk I took on this issue and I'm serious when I say it was risky, the warrants I and many others that chose to hold expired in dec/1998 worthless."
I don't know why you are down on him for bringing public SEC information to the attention of other investors. Is this a sensitive subject with you? Is there more we should know about?
Most people here (myself included) are still not sure how you ended up being listed in SEC filings. That type of requirement is usually reserved for stuff the SEC thinks should be made public. I think you have taken such an active role in the promotion of this mysterious company that participants here deserve to know more.
I'm also not impressed with the character assasinations on the astute poster who brought the SEC information to our attention. He has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, I'm surprised Jim hadn't disclosed this connection in such a way that everyone here was already familiar with it.
Once
Bulldzr, I beg to differ. What Hollerz contributed was entirely appropriate. He found a SEC document from 1995 that finally explained Mr. Lurgio's long-time participation/infatuation with this stock called IDCC. He's listed right there in the SEC filings for Interdigital.
I thought that's what investment forums were for, to help enlighten individual investors and share information! I don't recall him making any unfounded accusations and insinuations, LOL!
Once
Wow! You are way off base! The bold feature for membermarked names has been implemented.
It sounds like you just want to criticize for the sake of criticism. Your point isn't even valid. I'm incredibly impressed with how responsive Matt and Bob have been to user requests.
Once
Thanks for posting that Hollerz, it helps me make more sense of the cult surrounding IDCC. If you go back to 1996-1997 you will find there is one instigator who is pumping interest in IDCC, Jim Lurgio. Now we see in 1995 Mr. Lurgio and his wife are disclosed in official IDC SEC documents as having beneficial ownership of over 28,000 shares as confirmed by the links you posted. It all makes sense now!
All these years he has been hard at work to try to create value out of those shares by trying to portray IDCC as being on the leading edge.
Once
Actually Jim, that explanation is wrong:
"Dishfan gave a good explanation to Loop in this post.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1035192 "
Dishfan said that if accounting rules change and require options to be expensed, then previously granted options would not be affected. This is being used as a reason why shareholders are being asked to approve 5 million more shares now rather than wait until next year (so they can get the new shares in under the gun and not have to expense them).
Of course, this explanation does not hold water because the options are not expensed when they are approved by shareholders but when they are granted to insiders. Since there are already enough shares approved to last well over a year or two the approval of 5 million more options now (instead of next year) will not reduce the number of options that must be expensed.
The only way to achieve that would be to actually grant (give away) the options at an accelerated rate, kind of a drastic measure to take just to make the books appear more profitable.
Funny how people can twist the truth to fool the less savvy.
Once
Jim, think about what you are saying:
"If this proposal is voted down the people who are short this stock will be elated and I will not be a part of that."
If the extra options are approved, that's what will make the shorts happy. They want to cover in the future at the lowest possible price. Excessive dilution is like music to their ears. Why do you think they will be elated if the options are voted down?
Harry: Yep fella's, this slop trough is starting to look mighty empty....
Rip: Yep, 5 million shares ain't what it used to be...
Mark: You know, there's more where those came from, the magic printing press in the sky....
Guy: Fella's that ought to last us at least till next year, even at the piggy rate we've been consuming them....
Harry: Shhhhh! I lay awake at night thinking we are not doing all we can do to insure our future security. I want to be remembered as a good provider for my family. We'll just tell the shareholders the Bar Mitzva's are "lumpy" in frequency. Besides, you never know how those shareholders will be voting this time next year if we have to delay the extra options till then. Right now they are pleased with the stock performance. You know, next year we won't be so lucky. Believe me, you don't want to find out what it's like to have to conserve the options. Then we are all back-biting and in-fighting over who gets what. I'm a born leader and you will just have to take my word for it, it's better all around when there are more than enough for all, keeps bickering to a minimum. Those friggin' shareholders can go take a flying leap for all I care. Just be glad we have Blueskywaves over at iHub explaining things to 'em.
Mark: You da man, Harry, you da man!
Once
cls, think about what you are saying:
"Well once, if we did not do too well in 2g...why, how did they become a multi million dollar company?? Not bad for a small company with 100M in the bank and growing..."
Ummm....we are in the middle of the heyday of 2G wireless. The last few years have been the biggest in history and yet IDCC is barely breaking even? They had almost this much cash three or four years ago! Share prices haven't risen substantially in the last 20 years once you adjust for inflation. If that is what you call success than I want nothing of it.
"Interesting you hang out in when the stock price rolls back then you run for the hills on the incline..."
What? Are you trying to make a point?
Once
OK, I sense everybody could use a little pick-me-up about now....Turn up your speakers and prepare to ROCK with Wannabe and gang:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1018722
Please allow a short delay for audio loading.
My favorite song and the inspiration of my alias.
Once
Thanks for playing TALKING HEADS, Once in a lifetime! That song inspired my alias and has special meaning for me. Hey! I resemble that remark!
I'll tell you this wannabe, you probably won't get rich in one day. It took me about 10 years and an amazing confluence of events and I'm still not rich by many peoples standards, I have a lot of capital and a very modest amount of income. I never could have done it had my goal been to get rich, I would have made different (less productive) decisions. As it was, my goal was to have fun, be a good person and not worry too much and it just happened. I'm still flabergasted.
But the main thing is to enjopy life and make decisions that are rational and that you believe in.
Good luck!
Once
It's been a lot longer than that:
"that nokia and idcc was settled............idcc has been around 30 years...........they've been a public company for over 10 years..........how long does it take to figure out how to promote shareholder value?"
If you want to know the depressing truth, IDCC has been a public company for over 21 years!
Once
cls, IDCC never had a "solid" 2G deal so why do you think it will be any different for 3G?
Once
I don't know about that Dishfan:
"I'm not real optimistic that these events will happen soon - licensing is a tough business - but they will happen."
The further in the future an event is expected, the less likely it is to happen, everything else being equal. Furthermore, I'm not really sure why you say it will happen, as if it's a certainty, when no one has demonstrated with any certainty whatsoever that IDCC has ESSENTIAL 3G IPR.
Once
ulurider, I would like to think Nokia will be resolved by then also however, the timing of the resolution isn't nearly as important as the rate and other details of the agreement.
"Either way 2 more points down and then if you are a speculative investor (back up the truck).....or buy the september 25's calls for a crush late summer when obviously Nokia will be resolved."
Something tells me that if Nokia were prepared to pay the kind of money that everyone is apparently expecting (judging by managements published projections) they would have already signed up. The fact that this is still unresolved tells me Nokia has the ultimate bargaining edge and are holding out for a substantially better deal. Just how much better is anyone's guess but if they are substantially successful, watch out below!
Once
Desert, this is not surprising:
"It never fails, price goes up everyone is fat and happy, price goes down and we we start to complain."
Trust is something that takes many years to build and management has never been able to sustain a high stock price for more than a few months. Invariably, all the negative are exposed, the positives were not as they appeared and any trust that had built is destroyed. Is it any wonder then that people are fidgety when the price starts declining?
Once
I don't understand what you mean Jerry:
"BROKEN80, At least you have the decency to lurk and not post."
Are all of us "posters" indecent? Should we all just lurk and stare at a blank screen?
Should only those who think this is a "can't lose" investment post? Why does BROKEN80 demonstrate "decency" by not posting?
Please explain what your message means.
Once
Dishfan, that's a load if I ever heard one:
"Recruiting qualified Directors is not easy - the liabilites are substantial (an important consideration for successful business people who already "have it made"). I'd guess that Harry had to make a major effort to get these guys - especially in light of Interdig's history of struggle and failure."
First of all, the company indemnifies the directors against any liability as long as they are acting in good faith. This is liability insurance with the premiums being paid by the company. Your suggestion that anyone would think twice about being on a BoD because of liability concerns is not truthful.
Also, you are trying to portray the BoD's as being independent when any jackass can see that they are anything but, it's the same old, rub my back, I'll rub yours. How do you think they get all those options, benefits and bonuses?
"My bottom line is that the corporate structure (which, it appears, Harry built) is very pro-shareholder and is likely to provide optimal long term results."
You don't happen to work for the company, do you? Optimal long term results for who? The insiders? I'm laughing if you really believe what you are trying to convince others of. The only people that are going to be enriched are those who are able to time their buys and sells with the insiders option grants and their sales because in the long-term, I don't think this company is going anywhere.
Once
Does anyone know why Schwab Signature Platinum research is only showing one analyst following IDCC? A few weeks ago there was much hullabaloo about IDCC getting another analyst on board. Why doesn't Schwab recognize him (or did he drop coverage on IDCC not long after initiating)?
Once, slightly confused
Blue, there are certain rules in place that prevent management from liquidating all their company stock and options at once anyway. Fortunately, they do not apply to the rest of us.
Once
Mschere, you can't just sweep Hop-On under the rug:
"NEC was the last 3G license produced by IDCC ..Date 1/16/02..
It will have been 16 Months since IDCC has with "its strong patent portfolio" signed any 3G license..which by all Company statements is its future."
Hop-on licensed with IDCC on 12/16/02 for 3G. Nevermind the founder has been charged with fraud. As long as IDCC doesn't admit the license with Hop-on was fraudulent, with no intent to ever manufacture phones, until that time, Hop-On is a bona-fide 3G licensee. So I'm not really sure why you don't count them. At least with Matsushita (remember how much that one was hyped?) you admit that:
"Fact..Matsushita 3G license signed 4/03/01...No income to date"
You can say the same about Hop-On.
Once
Sophist, I believe you want to say "I couldn't care less."
When you say "And what's more I COULD care less.", you are implying that you have a certain amount of concern over the event which is not the message I think you intended to convey.
Still, I'm a little surprised nobody has made the argument that the insider dumping is a real positive because it implies there are no negatives in the closet that need to be disclosed before selling. Usually, someone would have offered that up by now.
Once
Finally, after weeks of trying to convince people to give away yet more of their ownership, we have some common ground:
"If one distrusts management then how can one trust the accounting?"
That's a really good point! I think you are absolutely right about that, especially the part about management.
Once
I'm not so sure:
"Do you think Corpgold is still vested? I think not because if he was he would be affording some comments. He made 2 posts on 03/18 and prior to that date he posted on 01/20. As good as he was I think he may have out smarted himself.
I really think he missed this run."
I always felt Corpgold, parq, "Darrell Smythe", etc. was feeling a little too close to the "action". He helped get this whole IDCC cult thing going, profited from it, remained a little mysterious as to his trading activity and positions, and now he disappears for the grand finale of the recent run, never having admitted publicly that he was turning bearish on the stock? If I were to launch an investigation at this point, I would start it right there. Hmmm....me thinks he might be selling out at the top (again).
Once
Good post Ams, and you are absolutely correct! This should prove once and for all that IDCC management is anything but conservative in their comments as well as their accounting practices.
Once
Revlis, it sounds like you are trying to imply that my presence here is the reason this board can't seem to function in a normal manner.
"Look who made an appearance as soon as this message board started getting civilized again."
I can assure you, the problem lies not with me but with other less restrained posters. My presence here actually helps to keep some of the hype in check because the hypesters know I will likely call them on it if they are too blatant.
As for my absence, I have been busy with other pursuits and am always amazed at how much people try to read into the most ordinary happenings. I guess it shouldn't surprise me, it's done with events surrounding IDCC also.
Once
Danny, I don't think filtering works that way. If this message gets through then you will know it doesn't work that way.
Once
Mschere, do you care to substantiate this far-out claim?
"It has always been IDCC's policy to be extremely conservative in the news they report."
Is that why we already have IDCC publishing figures for how much Nokia and Samsung MIGHT owe?
Is that why they speak in riddles like "gonna need a calculator with a lotta digits" and "we have the engine and transmission" and 3G growth like a "hockey stick"?
Now they have had to come out and say they don't think WCDMA growth will be like a hockey stick but will be more gradual and steady.
Are these really the comments of a company that is extremely conservative? I think not. I wish people would stop making that claim.
Once
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, all this ignores the fact that 3G agreements haven't been resolved yet either. Nobody knows how that will play out but I do know that manufacturers don't like to open their wallets unless they absolutely have no other choice.
IDCC has yet to demonstrate that they have this kind of 3G IPR even though millions of dollars of 3G equipment is being sold as we wait around. Q signed 3G licenses with the majors years ago.
Once
Loop, thanks for explaining yourself more thoroughly. Getting Nokia on board is the turning of the corner? I thought Nokia was already on board, we just didn't know what the rate was. Now they are on board, the rate is supposedly defined but we still don't know what it is. Management has made some royalty estimates but they use vague terms like "could be". On top of that, Nokia hasn't even agreed to IDCC's interpretation of whatever they think the rate is.
I don't think anyone here would be very surprised to learn the rates are not as high as expected. I see two likely scenarios:
1) Nokia agrees to IDCC's interpretation of the rate and this "good news" is used to unload many of the shares purchased by fund managers over the last 2-3 weeks without going in the hole. In this scenario the little guy becomes the bag holder when it is later discovered the rate is not nearly as high as hoped.
2) The obvious fear of most people, Arbitration.
I have discounted the 3rd possibility which is a timely resolution at the dream rates most here are hoping for because IDCC has no history of this kind of surprise. Why should everything change now? I still don't see this mythical "corner" that IDCC has supposedly turned.
I'm really not trying to be negative but I have to call it how I see it.
Once
I'm in awe, that one RoCkEd!
Once
Thanks Wantobe, you're the best.
Now if you could only convert to a FM station, that one had some serious static! Maybe you just need to clean your needle....I would have thunk you were converted to CD's by now...Of course it is oldies Thirstday, no? Maybe you are trying to add a little authentic ambiance?
Rock on!
Once
Oldies Thursday's? Cool! I hope 30 years old qualifies? If so I have a couple of awesome requests from The Dark Side of the Moon:
Time
Money
Once
Loop, I appreciate your thoughts. One thing I noticed is that you too appear to believe that IDCC has turned some mystical corner and everything will be different (better) from here on out. I can't see this mythical corner so it's hard for me to imagine why everything will be different. Certainly the $34 million Ericy settlement, when people were expecting hundreds of millions on the low side up to multiple billions on the high side, is not the corner which is alluded to?
This whole perception that IDCC has turned the corner is like deja vu. It takes me right back to early 2000 when the prevailing attitude was that IDCC had left all the bad behind and was now going to shoot for the stars. We all know how that ended. Now the same thing is happening all over again.
How can we learn from past mistakes if we refuse to see them for what they were?
Once