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.
Small sales won't matter much. They already have plenty of cash. Only the sale of the entire company/portfolio, or the signing of a Tier 1 device manufacturer, but only if on good terms, will pull IDCC out of this flat spin.
You're losing dreams, while shareholders bleed money. Hypothetical paper losses, compared to real money.
I think that multi-mode devices that include 3G/4G capabilities, are covered by the existing Apple agreement, among the "certain future devices". I doubt single mode LTE would be, but it is unlikely Apple will make such a device before their license expires. If this is not the case, IDCC should immediately file an ITC and District Court action against Apple, directed against the Verizon LTE capable iPad, to get on the docket.
InterDigital is a corporation, and IDCC is a stock. Neither is a political party, nor a religion, where belief systems are relevant. Mickey is a "true believer", and went broke proving his fidelity. Me, I just call 'em as I see 'em, based on my wireless obsession since 1997.
Which part of IMO (in my opinion) did you not understand?
Apple signed the nominal contract only because they intended to use Infineon basebands, IMO. Therefore, they are unlikely to renew without litigation, which will not be ripe for filing until the current agreement expires. Apple has proven it is not afraid to litigate.
That's simply rationalization. Every stock is marked to market, tick by tick. IDCC has been pumped up twice for brief periods of time, once in December 1999,and once last Fall.In between, it has been dead money. What about the "time cost" of holding a languishing asset? In this case, the spikes were 12 years apart. It well may never happen again, or if it does, it may be another 12 years, assuming they can stay in business that long. How many from this board have died along this Burma Trail?
The group that always has attacked everyone who tried to engage in adult discussion of the case for and against holding this stock, and you all know who you are, is left with talking about paper deflation of this asset, and false bravado. Nice work. Wearing blinders is good for horses, bad for investors.
Those without written employment agreements, who are "at will" employees, can be let go anytime, "without cause". Those protected by written employment agreements have only those protections agreed to in writing, if any. Likely, those contracts would define the terms of severance packages effective on the sale, merger, or dissolution of the company. Mickey's point is fiction.
The market may have no clue on how to value patents, but sophisticated corporations in the wireless sector do. In fact, InterDigital also knows their value, because all licenses are freely negotiated, with the benefit of the best engineering and patent counsel that both parties can obtain. Therein lies the problem, because even the licenses IDCC has been able to get signed over the years, have been entirely unimpressive in their implied royalty rates and terms.
Mickey, they've been threatening and litigating for years. No one pays attention to this paper tiger anymore. And when they do leverage a license from anyone important, the terms are laughable. As for voting management out, that won't happen until/unless institutional investors demand it. I received proxies by e-mail this morning and immediately voted "against" all proposals. That's an insignificant "feel good" protest vote, signifying nothing. Once again, we now own a litigation and takeover lotto ticket. Pathetic.
They've lost significant business, and their credibility. Now they're a litigation or sale lotto ticket.
Mickey, never try to predict a result in litigation based upon the time a jury deliberates, or an appellate court takes to render its opinion.
It was a serious question, inviting serious responses. Does anyone have a plausible thought of what they hope to learn from their Motion To Compel Production Of Documents, if granted?
What does Nokia want, the NDA descriptions and representations made through Evercore, concerning the patents, or something more sinister?
Relax, Mickey. No reason to be so defensive. No shareholders care to denigrate IDCC, including me. My response to the poster who regurgitated that old "Baby Qualcomm" canard was valid, and not insulting to him or the company. Had InterDigital decided to continue and adequately fund the SlimChip business, its business model (though not its scale) could have attempted to emulate Qualcomm's, but it abandoned that effort, electing to remain a pure play on its patent portfolio. The market value of that portfolio must rise and fall on its own merits, and the past decade has established how potential licensees perceive its value and relative importance. That speaks more loudly and with far greater credibility than your unrealistic boosterism.
Your "Baby Qualcomm" assertion has been unequivocally disproven during the past decade. The only thing the companies have in common is that they both own various wireless patents. Continuing to harp on that December 1999 hype analogy does a disservice to IDCC shareholders, and can only be used to manipulate unrealistic expectations.
Instead of attacking me personally, as is your style, address the logic of the points made. I have enough skin in this game (BTW, long only, as always) to voice my concerns and express my opinions directly. IDCC has been in business for decades, and there continues to be a disconnect between the claims of the perpetual pumpers, and the performance/valuation of the business.
Mickey, Apple signed a license, and has not paid "so much damn money". Nobody who has licensed, is paying "so much damn money". When peddled to the world for sale, no one made an offer for the company. That should tell you what you need to know about the "commercial market value" of the portfolio.
There's more to the business decision to license/extend, than your post implies. If the rates and terms aren't particularly onerous, many prudent corporations will opt to pay small amounts of royalties that can easily be passed on to customers, rather than risk the great expenditures of manpower and money inherent in protracted litigation, which itself is unpredictable as to outcome. In other words, it's a simple cost/benefit and risk/benefit analysis. Apparently, the likes of Nokia, LG,the Chinese,Motorola Mobility, perhaps Samsung,and others, have the scale and resources to seek better leverage, and take the risk.
What is the origin of the message board myth that IDCC didn't find a buyer because it was asking too much? What evidence exists that they were asking for any particular minimum amount, or that they set a prerequisite high price? Sounds like pure rationalization, from the "screaming buy" chorus.
All it sounds like to me is they're playing in a sandbox that "might" make "some" money for some companies, that may or may not include IDCC. That's hardly sufficient to create any revenue expectations, nor any investment thesis.That's also true of "bandwidth allocation", and to some extent, "M2M".
Do you care how much in revenues their version of "video optimization" will yield? That's the only relevant question, and you have no idea whether and to what extent any meaningful revenues will be generated. That's the problem with knowing a word, without knowing its value to shareholders.
The CAFC neither knows nor cares about what laymen or parties have predicted about the outcome of the appeal before them. That's simply not how the justice system works.My guess would be a split decision, with the majority in flux, but that's pure speculation.
Mickey, it's beyond contention that Apple and many others are awash in cash, and could buy IDCC with a "rounding error" of their assets. But nobody wanted the portfolio, evidenced by the fact that despite being shopped for months, nobody made an offer. Rich and Data have been right. The industry knows what IDCC has, and doesn't have, and they're unimpressed.
Mickey, if there were a contrarian "buy" signal, it would be this most recent post of yours.
Mickey, they backed IDCC out of the garage,into the sunlight, and invited everyone who cared to sign a NDA and look under the hood. No one found an engine, or transmission, let alone both.
Unfortunately, the disappointing licensing yield from 3G, where IDCC claimed the "engine and transmission", and asserted its commercially unsuccessful BCDMA efforts gave it the keys to 3G, has set the stage for disappointment in 4G, as well. One can't constantly litigate one's way into the market, rather than partner with device and infrastructure makers, and expect cooperation. Their rates should have been sufficiently realistic to enable licensing 100% of the players. We all would have been better served.
There's a big difference between "worthless", and "worth far less than you think".
The difference is that the "professional, technical swing trader" guy who started posting out of the blue, expressed strong "sell" opinions, chiding those fundamental investors who were "long". He admitted to knowing nothing of the company, but held himself out as an authority on the chart, and that the stock was headed to the 30's. All it has done since is break out to the upside. So either his chart interpretations suck, or charting itself is invalid, or both.
They have patents, but what's their commercial importance and value? In all the years I've owned and followed this stock, that's been the question, and the problem. Recalcitrant potential licensees, as well as the low implied rates ascribed to those that have been signed, suggests IDCC's portfolio has been determined by the wireless marketplace to have been inflated, and overstated. Name one license for 3G or 4G that suggests otherwise?
Hook, I've never hidden my long positions in either QCOM, or IDCC. Only difference over the years, is that QCOM has lived up to expectations, and more, while IDCC has failed to do so. Sorry you picked the wrong horse, and didn't put money on both. I guess that's the price of hatred.
Wasn't it Ericsson who was that allegedly "honorable company",at the time of their nominal settlement, when you claimed it would be in the "billions", with a "b"? What is most disturbing, is the inability to sign any 3G contracts at a percentage that matches the "engine and transmission" rhetoric, even as we transition from 3G to 4G. It is the relatively small commercial value placed on the 3G portfolio, that is most telling, and damning, of the 4G prospects.
Apple already has a 7 year sweetheart deal with IDCC, including 4G, at a nominal fixed fee. No infringement, at a rounding error cost.
The point is, a smart trader would have have made money riding the stock up, just like the fundamental investors have.
And you've already gone broke waiting for InterDigital to get any respect from its patent portfolio.
The point is, "the handwriting" was not on the wall. Either you blew the chart interpretation dismally, or your religious faith in charting was misplaced. Either way, your prediction of steep decline, from what you saw as an ominous double top, and ascending wedge,was dead wrong.
You're essentially a penny stock swing trader, and never knew anything about the unique competitive advantages of Qualcomm, within the hottest growth market on the planet. Fundamental analysis of due diligence, when it comes to real businesses, has again trumped your throwing of the bones.
You simply made a horrid call, and are now trying to revise its history. Admit the obvious, and move on.
Instead of blaming the legal system, or Nokia, why not blame IDCC management, and the gap between the commercial value of the patent portfolio, and the raised expectations of shareholders? When IDCC abandoned their chip business, they became relegated to being a pure play IPR shop, making nothing. To play that game, they needed a better patent portfolio, and a lot of luck in the litigation lotto. While other companies are collaborating and doing business, IDCC is suing prospective "partners". Now that the SA failed, they're left with a litigation business.
No, you won't find Infineon in the new iPad. Only Qualcomm has the GOBI modem that will allow global 2G/3G/4G roaming. The iPad2 and iPhone4 will be the last Apple products to have any Infineon silicon.They lost the slot to QCOM.
Patents were transferred to QCOM from NOK as partial consideration for the settlement, not "sold" to them.
IDCC doesn't license at the chip level, so don't look for NVDA/Icera to sign.