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.
Excellent point.
But you wouldn't think a threat by a judge would be recorded.
We have fairly reliable information that Judge Lynn put the arm on both IDCC and Ericy, and said she would start peeling the onion.
"Disarming", at this point would not be cricket, which may the reason that IDCC wanted additional time to respond, if Lynn thought about backpeddling.
Guess I misunderstood.
Now that the Big Show is settled, I thought Judge Lynn sealed the entire case, at the request of the parties.
Kevin. I just talked with the Dallas court.
Lori Greco, Judge Lynn's deputy, is out until Monday, and I was referred to another party.
When I gave her the old case number, she said "this case is sealed.", and could provide no info regarding NOK's latest response.
Do you have a different reference number than the IDCC/Ericy case #1809?
Seems to me that Ericy is saying
"We signed a license agreement with IDCC, which (obviously) contains a royalty rate. Other than the rate, it's none of Nokia's business"
End of lawsuit. End of story. End of Nokia's motion.
MTS.
Howard's comment indicates that he's not about to back down. However, I'm still not clear on IDCC's course of action if they want (quick) injuntive relief.
Certainly, going to court to prove infringement and obtain an injunction is not what I'd call a surprise action. This could take many months/years, and might be just the opportunity that NOK is looking for, especially if Judge Lynn denies their motion.
I'm also curious about Howard's comment that they are working both internally and EXTERNALLY to bring this to a conclusion.
As usual, more questions than answers.
Mschere.
Fascinating comments, if you boil them down to just a few words:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE CALLER: Is there any leverage that you guys have today? here I'm talking about things like bringing injunctions against them -- shipping handsets -- things of that sort.
HOWARD GOLDBERG: The answer is yes.
The Russell people report a technical problem.
They hope the new 1000 list will be available by about 1 PM eastern time, and suggest checking the website then.
I'm not opposed to options per se, and I know a little more than numbers, after being in the business world for over 50 years.
But the combination of high salaries, bonuses, and options is a ticket to complacency.
When I got them, I had to perform. If I didn't the bonus and options went down the drain.
IDCC execs have been getting them in past years, regardless of performance.
I surrender. LOL.
Chartex. Best post of the day. Thanks.
Ah. But can you name two? LOL.
Funny how investors know that fewer options mean less dilution.
Are they stupid, or what?
No. You heard 27.19.
Movin' on up to the East Side.
Damn. We're back to 26.97.
This options thing is a total disaster.
Go peddle your papers somewhere else, Once.
I was speaking generically.
Management proposes, shareholders say yes or no.
It happens thousands of times a year.
Danny. I'm pulling no stunt. I'm simply responding to a request for a vote, as an individual shareholder.
If you believe that management should have a blank check, I would not want you working for me.
No offense. This board seems more interested in not offending management than it does acting like owners of the company.
If you know of a company that rewards its officers and BOD more than IDCC, please let me know.
Zits. The DOW reversed itself by 90 points from the open, which had something to do with the drop.
The rest, IMO, is profit taking, MM's feeling the pinch of options expiration, etc.
We will return to the 27.00 level.
I agree. What's the big fuss?
Danny. So what should any red-blooded shareholder do?
Sit back and let management do what it wants, regardless of how it affects their investment?
Management has asked for a vote. If they get turned down, it won't be the first time.
But it will send a message.
You guys are a hoot.
The CFO of IDCC makes the same as the CFO of Dupont.
He also get bonuses, and hefty options.
And you don't want to shut off the options fawcet?
Loop. My fondest wish:
A press release or SEC filing by IDCC, that doesn't beg more questions than it answers.
It's not so much for my benefit. It would just make it easier to explain to my wife. LOL.
Well, I was close.
As usual, we're left in the dark.
Wasn't it George Washington who said, "let there be light".
Looks like we need a little corporate strategy here.
The indemnity clause is obviously known to many licensees.
And it's no secret to many others in the business.
What might happen if it's brought out in the open?
Why are some posters saying this only applies to CDMA, while IDCC's statement clearly says it applies to WCDMA?
Where did they say that in the CC?
Show me the written word, and I'll agree.
Last attempt.
During the conference call, Howard indicated the NOK battle was over.
He specifically said there was a (not overly long) period for negotiation, which could go to arbitration. But no mention of another licensee.
After lying during the conference call, and failing to sign Ericy to 3G, what gives you confidence that we'll see NOK resolved this year?
Thanks for finally seeing my point.
Insider selling is one thing.
Honesty is quite another.
If you recall, Howard mentioned nothing about this at the conference call.
"one of the best conference calls I've ever heard", was the oft-quoted refrain.
If he'd told the truth, the whole meeting would have self-destructed.
If you're having trouble reading my post, I'll be glad to have a third grade english teacher drop by.
Yes, I do.
Stick it in your ear, Raymond.
During the conference call:
1. Management knew they had to sign one or more licensees to get NOK to the royalty table.
2. They knew they'd have trouble signing new licensees, with the mystery "indemnifier" in the wings.
3. They knew the Sharp license would lapse.
4. They knew they had to reveal all of this in the 10K, so why didn't they say so during the conference call?
They chose to keep quiet, and you want to give them a blue ribbon.
If they had been truthful, I would have sold my shares at 24.00. Now it's too late, for everyone but the insiders who knew what was coming.
Seems to me, the price today, is where it would have been, if IDCC had told the truth at the conference call.
Waiting till 10K-time, gave officers the time to align their interests with those of shareholders.
I didn't see the article. Scusa. Actually, it was reported by an IH poster.
Short note about IDCC in USA Today, according to Yahoo poster.
Second out of 10 hot stocks.
DD. No slingshots at the moment. They appear quickly, and disappear just as fast.
Revlis.
With a company like IDCC, there should be "carryovers" after every yearend.
So, if they included carryovers for 2001 into 2002, this would seem to be an acounting pickle.
In order to balance the scales, they'd have to do the EXACT same for 2003.
Revising the numbers 75 days after year end is either too cute, or just plain wrong, IMO.
Gotta run.
Some of the latest viruses do that. They look absolutely legit.
Strange thing is, there's no way I could get your address, unless it came in another email, from someone who has it.
Had to get Norton to clean up the mess.
Be careful. I didn't send an email. Lots of viruses going around. Don't open anything with attachments without checking.
My wife just had 25 viruses removed.