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.
In a nutshell, what does your post mean?
If trial goes the full route, and the jury and judge find for IDCC, Ericy will choose whether to appeal, settle, or simply pay the amount owed.
If the final ruling is, for example, $500 million, they might settle, rather than appeal.
If the ruling is $2 billion, they might have no other choice than appeal.
Such a ruling might bankrupt the company, or cause so much consternation, that no one would want to deal with them, fearing they might not be able to perform under contracts.
Talking to jurors after trial may be unusual.
However, a friend just finished jury duty in Detroit.
During the three-week patent trial, (involving patents on airport security equipment), the jury sided with one party during deliberation. They felt sorry for one party, who failed to get a written agreement with his partners. But they were forced to follow the judge's instructions, and found for the other.
For some reason, both parties seemed satisfied with the results, and there will apparently be no appeals.
Regardless, lawyers for both sides asked to talk to willing jurors, and their requests were granted.
Winning may be everything for the parties. But knowing why, could be more important to the lawyers who tried the case.
Cash is not safe. Just send your credit card.
Thanks. She might even find this one interesting. Not often a patent case is tied up for 10 years.
According to the DallasThree, it's been taking place with Ericy for 18 years.
Every time I type that number, I get a sharp pain.
Surely you're not suggesting that we could wait a year or more.
Patents have a limited life.
JK. According to PACER, Judge Lynn has had the final paper work from the Harris combatants for 7 weeks.
She also spent four years of her life, watching the high-wire acts of Ericy, which is now hanging by its finger tips from the trapeeze.
Since Harris only involved two (?) claims, and is hardly a landmark case, we'll all chip-in if you stop by her office, and ask...
WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO REMOVE THE NET, AND GIVE YOUR RULING!!!!!!!
If both cases go against Ericy, the total jury award could be in the $500 million-$1 billion range. Allowing a 50% premium for appeal bonds, we're looking at $750 million to $1.5 billion, or so.
This is about 10-20% of Ericy's current $8 billion cash. But, they will reportedly spend half of that, funding losses in 2003, and for additional restructuing.
If they borrowed the money, they'd pay thru the nose, if they found a willing lender.
If that didn't stop them from appealing, how likely is it that Judge Lynn would grant a cease and desist order, BEFORE the case might go to appeal?
Clarence. Always great posts!
Do you happen to know if there is a fixed rate for an appeal bond. i.e., in some courts, the bond is set at double the amount awarded.
If Ericy loses to Harris and IDCC, the amount of a bond could be crucial.
They just dropped a bigger bomb, and took us down to 14.08.
You're right L2V.
I've been watching too many AFLAC commercials.
Mschere. How do I put this delicately?
Was that our "Kwak" near the bottom of the list?
I wish I had your confidence that common sense would prevail.
But when has that ever happened with Ericy?
If there was an "Ericy Question and Answer Game", and you bet against logic and common sense, you'd be a winner every time.
I have noticed, however, that the Shorts may be getting nervous.
They took us down without mercy at the close yesterday. But we bounced back in AHT, and again in today's trading. Must have really pissed 'em off.
You may have noticed during the last few days, the pace of 100 share sell orders, designed to control the price, has been picking up. Sometimes at a fever pitch.
It got really bad at one point today. I just sat there, finding it to believe that so many orders could be placed and withdrawn in less than a second. I emailed the NAZ Police, which is something I haven't done in many moons.
Today's volume was 130,000 higher than yesterday's. And if we can just keep moving it up, we may find they are more worried than some think.
JK. There's no doubt. Harris has a strong position. If you got the opposite impression, that's my fault.
And their strong position may be the reason that Ericy hasn't settled, assuming they'd like to do so.
But, given their history, I wouldn't bet a nickel on whether they'll settle or appeal.
Some things to consider:
I'm told Harris lost to Ericy in another patent suit in 2001. They may want retribution.
Harris has already said this was their costliest litigation, and was a waste of their time, and that of the Dallas Court.
Ericy may owe $130 million to Infineon in purchasing obligations. If you add another $140 million difference ($180 vs. $40) for Harris, that's damn near $300 million (may not include interest/legal fees).
I'm not trying to guess the amount they might settle for. Just trying to figure out which way their might go.
Could go either way. They may go for the juggler, and may want to get the suit behind them.
What's your guess?
Of course there's a penalty.
Something like $500 million-$1 billion.
A 3G license agreement, with no MFL, and a little added for past discretions.
That's the law Charlie. Don't blame me.
And if you think they can't do it, keep your eye on the Harris suit. Ericy may yet settle.
You may notice, I said nothing about extinguishing Ericy.
If they lose, they will either appeal, or agree to a structured settlement. My guess is structured, after first saying they will appeal.
Ericy is getting closer to break even, and won't disappear from the planet.
The Wallenbergs will make sure they stick around, albeit with a badly swollen and bloody nose.
I remain in the "we're going to trial" camp.
Ericy needs time to get closer to profitability, to prove the pundits wrong.
Although they risk being branded a "double-infringer", they also could win.
If they lose, they could wipe the record clean by settling after a jury verdict, but before a final ruling by Judge Lynn.
So far, they haven't blinked and settled with Harris, even though they know Judge Lynn could rule at any time.
The next meaningful move to the upside could be just a click away on PACER.
But clicking on "Search" several times a day just isn't working. LOL.
The Lady in the Black Robe has had more than 6 weeks to make her final decision.
But she continues to hold Ericy, Harris, and IDCC by the you-know-what.
Touche'. However, Ericy's price is down 40% since the recent high in November, while IDCC is down 20% from the same date.
Interesting thought.
I can see Howard now on CNBC, defending his position for hiding revenues. LOL.
Regardless of whether Judge Lynn renders her verdict soon, Ericy and PWC will need a computer to figure out the alternatives for the audited statement:
1. Affirmed.
2. Doubled.
3. Trebled.
4. Reduced.
5. Overruled.
Your statistics are interesting.
But the number that caught my eye is Ericy's short position has increased more than 800% since last June.
You can't say that about IDCC.
Ericy short interest almost doubles:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Short
Interest Avg Daily
Share Volume Days
to Cover
Feb. 14, 2003 9,812,762 3,648,584 2.69
Jan. 15, 2003 5,358,821 2,906,451 1.84
Dec. 13, 2002 6,244,180 3,582,630 1.74
Nov. 15, 2002 3,054,017 13,299,187 1.00
Oct. 15, 2002 1,130,497 2,390,825 1.00
Sep. 13, 2002 4,386,473 4,796,771 1.00
Aug. 15, 2002 2,403,881 2,645,029 1.00
Jul. 15, 2002 1,427,416 1,471,198 1.00
Jun. 14, 2002 1,169,587 1,254,778 1.00
The PE doesn't seem to bother Lowenstein or Louie Navellier.
That was one of Mschere's theories.
But I would like to know about the process of doing DD via the SEC.
Like other filings, it will probably be a dud, because rose-colored-glasses interpretations have never panned out in the past.
You're sawing off the limb, slowly but surely.
But I'll take one more crack:
All contracts would not have to be disclosed. Only those with of the largest customers, right?
Also, do you have any more ideas about the "process", and what IDCC would be required to disclose via 8K?
Although a 5%/more buy is obviously a longshot, I've never been involved with a stock that just started reporting things out of the blue, without explanation.
IQ. Whooa pardner.
Could we guess a little longer on Mschere's 'little' comment, about the possibility of someone wanting to buy 5% or more of IDCC?
That theory is a little rosier than others. LOL.
But do the experts agree that, in preparation for such an event, IDCC would BE REQUIRED to bring its major contracts into the limelight?
We've all been wondering why IDCC failed to give an explanation for this unexpected 8K. Unlike the O.J trial, this glove fits.
Thanks. Maybe we'll see more of PWC's handiwork when Ericy's audited statement is available (around the end of March).
I was not aware that outside auditors got involved in compliance with SEC regulations.
I always thought SEC compliance was a specialty in itself. The complexities are so great, they are often overseen by an outside lawfirm which specializes in compliance. (Especially with smaller firms, like IDCC).
Your theory is very plausible, and is now high on my list of possibilities. But can you elaborate a bit on outside auditors straying from accounting responsibilities, into the SEC arena?
The setting of a rate with NOK would surely be cause for a filing.
I don't believe that's the case, because they said nothing about a change in financial condition or operations of IDCC.
I suspect there is some other reason for filing under Section 13 (which was mentioned first-before 15(d), and without some direction, it is impossible to find the needle.
Once again, we're out on a limb.
We don't know whether they'll saw it off next week, or finish what they started, by giving an explanation.
If they're back from Cannes Monday, their phones will surely be ringing off the hook.
Let's look at this one more time.
IDCC said they issued the 8K in accordance with Section 13 OR 15(d). (Repeat 15(d)).
On quick review, there are no index headings under Section 13 that appear to apply to the release of contracts with others. However, I believe there is a requirement to release certain information.
The following SEC language would appear to apply, and we've seen it several times since last night:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Real Time Issuer Disclosures
Each issuer reporting under section 13(a) or 15(d)
shall disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis,
such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations of the issuer, in plain English,
......necessary or useful for the protection of investors and in the public interest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments:
1. Since the 8K is designed for investors and the public, it would not appear to have anything to do with new or existing licensees, or the trial with Ericy.
2. The 8K says NOTHING (in plain English, or otherwise) about CHANGES in the FINANCIAL CONDITION OR OPERATIONS of IDCC.
What does all of the above mean. Beats the hell out of me.
Let's go back to the beginning:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
This 8-K is being filed in order to file as exhibits,
certain contracts which the Company...(has) entered into between May 8, 1995 and January 15, 2002.
These contracts have previously been described in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why go back 8 years? Why just NOK and NEC? Why file again, if they've already been filed?
Well, damn it Sale. You're right near the scene of the crime.
Why not drop in tomorrow and ask?
Strike that. The new Communications Director is also in Cannes.
????????????
Let's hope the boys on Wall Street will be wondering the same thing over the weekend.
We've been wrong more than right in interpreting news for three years, and are probably wrong again.
But if IDCC called a "real time-side out" during the volley ball game in Cannes, or just happened to rent a conference room to renew old acquaintances with Kurt Hellstrom................
Someone stop me before I..................
Know what you mean. I've been in since 1998. But we're much better off pricewise, than we were on August 6, when the price was $6.32.
Moreover, what we've learned from the DallasThree, and the prospects for resolving NOK/NEC in the near future, the probability of getting your head above water is greater than ever.
Read into this what you will.
"shall disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis, such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations..."
If IDCC is required to report on a "real time" basis, something must have triggered the filing.
I skimmed the MFL earlier, but was hoping we could learn more about NOK's royalty obligations to IDCC, after January 2002.
But that would have been too much to expect.
The missing link:
The MFL royalty agreement from NOK. (Did I miss it).