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.
desertdweller, good catch. I never understand the material aspect of IDCC's NEWS that would require 8K filing. How can this be not material? Forget about the option players (though I don't like the idea that the call sellers are getting their way and are able to pin it to a price), but, it could have stopped a lot of bleeding that started on July 8th.
Anyway, the next few weeks will be interesting because of the 45 day stipulation that started on July 16th.
-vg_future
gatticaa, it is spread over 5 years (around 56-57 mill per year).
-vg_future
revlis, thanks. That means the fixed payment stuff that Tom Carpenter is advocating would really apply to only a part of the license....meaning there is variable aspect to it and that should give us the multiples as Apple sells more.
-vg_future
squingeqbob, which agreement. The UK case and the legal fees?
TIA,
vg_future
All, they did this (releasing the results the day before inthe evening) 4 or 5 years back. I can't remember what happened after that, but, I definitely remember that they had pretty good numbers and they reported earlier.
-vg_future
migo, looks like they tailored the sentence to fit their agenda. Is that the PR title? Preliminary injunction was preventing them and it was overturned lifting the injunction. I know that everybody here knows this, but, I feel like saying it loud for any new eyes/visitors out there.
...Summary Order reversing a decision by a lower court granting a preliminary injunction preventing InterDigital from proceeding against Nokia at the US International Trade Commission
-vg_future
Good luck...I wish you success for the sake of all longs.
-vg_future
Some interesting trading in Aug 25 calls. They jumped by 500 or so (final count 560) in the last few minutes of the trading. Is somebody expecting some NEWS before August 1st (one of the dates discussed here for ICC decision) or earnings release?
We will find out soon....????!!!!
-vg_future
bulldzr, this all could come into play when manufacturers like Samsung want to re-negotiate their deal after seeing NOK/QCOM deal. In one of the PRs, QCOM was quoted as saying that they will be happy to give others the same deal as NOK if they can provide the same value to QCOM (this was in response to the question...what if other manufacturers want the same deal...I think it is a public secret that QCOM has yielded considerably on their 5% claim...though they finally are saying that they still effectively got 5%). QCOM might have sold millions of chips, but, yet they are saying that NOK is now providing them value (their own words not mine). Everybody might know what the truth is, but, still other manufacturers can play the same card.
JMHO,
vg_future
All, sorry if I start another round of takeover discussions. But, I had to say this out loud (lingering in my mind ever since I read NOK/QCOM settlement PRs). QCOM gave concessions (as per the PRs significant enough...around 1 to 2%) to NOK because they thought NOK had something to give them (considerable patents I believe). What if Samsung buys us? Wouldn't they get the same weight as their competitor did and hence be able to cut their royalty by 1 to 2 % which could be very significant (assuming that their license is ready for renewal/re-negotiated). Samsung could pay handsome amount to IDCC and yet make money at the end.
JMHO,
vg_future
infinite_q, olddog967 & my3sons87, thanks for your responses. It makes sense that he cannot quote the exhibit (because he is not supposed to base his judgement on it), but, getting it in the back of his mind (as I said, to make him better understand what Samsung is trying to pull) is good enough.
-vg_future
infinitie_q, can the ALJ still consider the contents of the exhibits (understand what Samsung is doing) even though they are not accepted?
TIA,
vg_future
rooster, do you really think that IDCC is asking more than QCOM that you are suggesting that it has to settle for what QCOM got? I think IDCC will jump at such offer.
JMHO,
vg_future
rooster, QCOM's situation is different. In their own words, QCOM said that they got something in return from NOK. I am not sure what IDCC can get from NOK (other than the fact that we can force rest of the manufacturers to license).
-vg_future
Data_Rox, maybe not a 1% bump, but, atleast it would stop them from re-negotiating (probably the "whining" as you mentioned in your post) their licenses to match what NOK is paying. I thought I read in one of the press releases that the other manufactures might want to re-visit their licenses after this NOK-QCOM settlement.
JMHO,
vg_future
ellismd, the patent loss in Germany might have forced QCOM to yield a bit (or considerably). Also, in the PR NOK said that it got what it was looking (anyway, they cannot say otherwise....because they always twist things to show that they have a upper hand).
-vg_future
All, forget the bogus estimates. When IDCC gave the earnings update last month (or the month before..I don't remember), there was a jump in the share price. So, it is definitely better than expected (not a shortfall by any means). Please stop casting unnecessary doubts.....IDCC will shine....we are very much in the Iphone (checkout the post from teecee on the atomic bob board).
JMHO,
vg_future
Very very SAD. My deepest sympathies to MSCHERE's family. EOM
-vg_future
ellismd, only 2 possibilities. Either that offer really sucked (considering we've got 160 mill judgement from arbitration II) or IDCC is really confident about the findings in the staff report.
JMHO,
vg_future
revlis, yes, I understand. Thanks.
-vg_future
loophole73, I know you now hate tea leaves...but, for fun, I will make a wild guess...you don't have to respond to this.
Staff was against consolidation....because he was leaning towards "no spoilation for Samsung" (Samsung made some $ offer vs NOK's zero offer) and "spoilation for NOK" (saw right through NOK's games).
ALJ refused that and said "Spoilation for both" (Samsung and NOK are equally bad and unethical.....no good faith in any of the offers they made).
ALJ finally agreed to de-consolidation because he thought he could get IDCC and Samsung to settle while he can take NOK to the laundromat.
Now I can live peacefully wait till ALJ gives his verdict.
-vg_future
thanks revlis. So, it might have just happened and not necessarily a planned one. IDCC had its PR people for something like this and had to release the PR once it has come out in the hearing.
-vg_future
okay, thanks loophole73. I think we will just have to wait for the transcript then.
-vg_future
loophole73, one quick one if you have got couple of minutes. Since Samsung and IDCC requested the staff report to be confidential, would the Samsung lawyer revealing of its contents (conveniently for Samsung and shorts???) be sanctionable? Shouldn't this type of behavior call for fines?
TIA,
vg_future
Yes, referring to LG license tells us that they are either feeling or expecting pressure like "okay if LG licensed what is your problem????".
Just for facts, I don't think LG's market share has increased by huge percentage from when they signed with us to now (in spite of capturing some of MOT's share). I think it is still between 7 and 8%.
The cross licensing argument (IDCC asking for free usage as per Samsung's lawyer) could be interesting. Is Samsung offering FRAND for maybe 1 or 2 patents?
JMHO,
vg_future
revlis, thanks a lot. Must be really interesting exhibits. We all appreciate your time and efforts.
-vg_future
revlis, so the "no violation" could be because of the staff's position on the 791, right?
Thanks for all your help and time.
-vg_future
lastchoice, could you just.......let it play out. You are not the ALJ or IDCC....so, don't make statements as if you know all.
The 791 could be a part of the staff recommendations, so, why don't you take a deep breath and relax.
JMHO,
vg_future
One good example of delayed settlement is RIMM and NTP. RIMM ended up paying more than 600 mill and that too after a patent validation fiasco for atleast of the NTP's patents...why? because they had the ruling in their favor.
JMHO,
vg_future
wow, loophole73, excellent way of putting it in black and white.
Thanks for all your thoughts. Enjoy them all the time.
-vg_future
mschere, as revlis said, IDCC could file to vacate the stay either if it receives something that is in its favor or if it hasn't received any update from ICC yet.
-vg_future
Thanks gio. As you said, since the settlement conference is scheduled for yesterday and today, filing for the lifting of the stay could be just procedural (lawyers doing their stuff). Also, as revlis said, filing for lifting of the stay could also mean that the ICC's decision might have gone IDCC'd way.
-vg_future
mainelefty, I agree. I was only thinking that infringement argument might not be a big enough defense because they spoke about FRAND rates which means that they are already using the patents and want to pay something fair (as in zero!!!!).
-vg_future
RedCyfac, I think our judicial system and all the "delays" that it bestows is the only defense that Samsung has.
JMHO,
vg_future
Did anybody look at the bid/ask now? They are at 24.60/25.50.
Somebody is expecting something..let's see what we get tomorrow.
Goodluck All!
vg_future
revlis, thanks. I agree that olddog has provided the information that clarified my confusion and NOK's stand (not that it is right).
-vg_future
olddog967, thanks for the clarification. Your comprehension and research skills are great. Thanks again.
-vg_future
revlis, thanks. I am very much confused and from my reading I am thinking that NOK is also confused because they seem to be taking, just for the heck of it, an opposing stand (also conflicting) to whatever IDCC's stand is.
IDCC wanted a detail report of settlement talks to ALJ or limited people.
NOK opposes to that saying there is no need for detailed report (are they afraid that more unwanted details will come out?)
IDCC wanted to limit the access to these details to few people (even eliminating staff)
NOK opposes to that saying there is nothing in the detailed report that needs this limitation of access (huh? I am confused at this point...didn't they just say that they don't want details and immediately they turn around and say there is nothing in the report that needs limitation).
My reading comprehensions aren't that great...that could be the source of this confusion.
Thanks for your valuable input.
-vg_future
revlis, you said
Noka wants a competitive advantage over Samsung. That is why Nokia does not want Samsung to see those documents.
I thought IDCC was objecting to Samsung's request. Is NOK objecting too? If so, then we are seeing some cracks in their pseudo friendship.
TIA,
vg_future
ha ha...good one...so, the next confidential filing in this case would be for a restroom break!!!
-vg_future