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.
May take good news to break $35.
An enormous amount for sale at $35. Someone just flashed 95,000 shares.
PACER Delaware.
There are several new filings, including a full version of Nokia's Amended Complaint, which has some interesting information. Perhaps most notably, in IDCC's response to Nokia's request for additional time for discovery, IDCC agrees that more time is needed. In so agreeing, IDCC notes that it will soon assert counterclaims. I would not be surprised to see an infringement count added now. The risk of having a court saying the patents are not valid already exists with Nokia's new claims (if the court buys Nokia's arguments), so IDCC has little to lose in being more affirmative and offensive.
Thanks, though I dont think that really tells us either way. I tend to think given the dearth of concrete information, the answer is no. But am happy to be pleasantly surprised.
So the rumor that a "stong buy" was issued on friday is not true?
Any more on the purported/alleged coverage by Goldman?
PACER DELAWARE:
The Special Master granted, in part, IDCC's Motion for Sanctions relating to Nokia's failure to properly prepare its 30b6 deposition. While the Court found that the discovery violation was not willful, it awarded IDCC its fees and costs associated with taking the deposition, and ordered Nokia to produce another witness.
Separately, IDCC asked for its motion to stay and motion for leave to file summary judgment to be heard on 2/9.
PACER DELAWARE:
Two interesting filings - (1) order setting telephone conference to discuss "status of negotiations" and "whether a spring mediation" is helpful and (2) notice of deposition for an author who wrote an article finding 4 of IDCC's patents essential. The article is attached.
That's what I understood as well. Can anyone prove this correct or incorrect?
I think that if Apple is not using the IDCC version of the IFX chips then we will get no royalty. Further, I see no reason why Apple would license with us, but I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Didn't we already decide this is a 2g or other IFX Chip for which IDCC will receive no royalty?
true or not, the filing of new claims and the early amended complaint evidence the parties are far from settlement.
Nokia's Motion to Amend the Complaint flew by under the radar. Nokia has asked to add 5 more claims (e.g., unjust enrichment, deceptive trade practices), in addition to its Lanham Act claim. That would mean our motion for summary judgment would not end the case...likely one of the reasons Nokia did this. Note that, at least as of Dec. 30, one of the new claims was NOT seeking a declaratory judgment on the validity of the patents, though I expect that's coming.
Motorola lowers forecast on cell phone sales
Analysts say the No. 2 maker may have to cut pricing on more mobile devices to fight larger rival Nokia.
January 5 2007: 5:56 AM EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Motorola Inc., the world's No. 2 maker of cell phones, has lowered its forecast for quarterly results due to a shortfall at its mobile devices unit.
The earnings warning made late Thursday fell far below Wall Street expectations and could be the result of a fiercer price contest between Motorola (Charts) and its larger rival, Nokia (Charts), as well as a greater reliance on emerging markets where cheaper handsets are sold, analysts said.
"This probably means they've been trying to fight Nokia on pricing. It probably means Nokia's going to see a similar trend - high unit volumes and low phone pricing and margins," said Charter Equity Research analyst Ed Snyder.
Motorola said it now estimates fourth-quarter sales of $11.6 billion to $11.8 billion, shy of its prior view of $11.8 billion to $12.1 billion, despite investor hopes for more robust sales from its slim Razr phone and new models like the Krzr.
"They probably cut pricing on the Razr and the other phones didn't make up the difference," said Snyder.
AT&T said to plan wireless push
Motorola also said it expects to report net income of 13 cents to 16 cents per share, below an internal forecast compiled at the start of the quarter.
The forecast includes 10 cents per share in special charges, such as investment-related losses, stock based compensation costs and extraordinary tax expenses.
Analysts on average had forecast fourth-quarter revenue of $11.99 billion and earnings per share of 38 cents, before special items, according to Reuters Estimates.
The reduced forecast may also stem from demand in emerging markets like China and India but less strength in western Europe and the United States, Snyder said. He expected Motorola and Nokia shares would trade lower Friday.
"We are very disappointed with our fourth-quarter financial performance, but we remain committed to the strategic direction and long-term financial targets we discussed at our annual analysts meeting," Chief Executive Ed Zander said in a statement.
Motorola estimated that unit sales in mobile devices rose 48 percent to 66 million units from a year ago, but said the results fell short of its expectations based on "an unfavorable mix" of regional and product-type sales. The company did not elaborate further.
Snyder had forecast mobile device sales of about 61 million units and said he believed Motorola had likely sold more phones at lower prices.
In October, Motorola posted third-quarter revenue that disappointed analysts' forecasts due to weaker-than-expected mobile phone sales, particularly in Europe. Nokia said at the time it had cut prices sharply to win market share, a move that squeezed its margins.
One month later, Motorola reported very strong cell phone demand "from a shipment perspective," particularly for its Krzr model, according to its cell phone unit chief Ron Garriques.
Motorola is due to report fourth-quarter earnings Jan. 19, when it said it would discuss plans to improve operating profitability.
Market is closed today.
PACER DELAWARE: Nokia asked for a four month extension of the discovery period, claiming that IDCC still has refused to identify which patents it contends are essential. Nokia claims that out of 195 patents IDCC declared as essential, it is only claiming that 11 are essential now...without providing any info on the other 184.
I'm not expecting one, just curious if there are any theories on this...both buying and selling.
Is there any pattern or theory relating to whether stocks that had appreciable gains in a given year are purchased or sold off at the beginning of the next year (e.g., people will sell IDCC in January who didn't want to sell in December to incur gains that year)?
Thanks
Can anyone even provide a rough guess as to the amount of revenue we are talking about here?
This motion has nothing to do with the arbitation. Its on the merits of the Lanham Act claim.
PACER in Delaware. Nokia filed its response to IDCC's request for summary judgment. IMO, Nokia did a good job at explaining why it needs more discovery, and that it is premature to rule now. Given that IDCC's motion is dispositive, I expect the court to rule in favor of Nokia...not because its substantively correct on the merits, but because courts are hesitant to cut off cases without full discovery.
It was Nokia's response to IDCC's motion to stay pending the arbitration. It's moot, the court already ruled.
Thank you for wasting 30 seconds of my life with that post. Much appreciated. Next time, please put OT, or do not have a subject that reads "IDCC CEO will be making an appearance," causing people to think you have a legitimate post. Thanks in advance.
InterDigital Dives, Revives
By Rich Smith (TMFDitty)
December 11, 2006
Hey, buddy, have you heard the one about the efficient market theory? Yeah, it seems that the stock market instantly absorbs all news, and reacts immediately to find the appropriate stock price for the companies the news affects. Har!
To proponents of the efficient market theory, I proffer as rebuttal evidence the example of Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection InterDigital Communications (Nasdaq: IDCC), a little Pennsylvanian IP shop that helps make your cellphones go "ring." On Tuesday after close of trading, the company released its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter. On Wednesday, when the market reopened, the stock fell 7%. On Thursday it got nearly half that loss back; and Friday, rose yet again. Now tell me: Which of those prices, on which of those days, was the "appropriate" one in response to the news?
Guidance delayed is guidance denied?
In its third-quarter earnings release last month, management declined to give precise revenue guidance, promising instead to provide this "following the receipt and review of applicable royalty reports." Lacking a company-provided cheatsheet, Wall Street just guessed: $105.6 million. So imagine the shock when InterDigital finally confirmed last week that it thinks the real number will be closer to $63 million (with the possibility of additional revenues from "new agreements that may be signed during the quarter, or additional royalties").
Note that caveat, by the way, because it's important. Commenting on our Stock Advisor discussion boards, Fool member idccjoe advised that: "The nature of [InterDigital's] income from IP means that there will be quarterly variances which will result in these spikes, both up and down. IDCC's performance must be measured over years, not quarters."
"New agreements" and "additional royalties," if they appear this quarter, would yield a revenue spike up. If they don't, then a spike down. In contrast to those spikes, my Foolish colleague Thomas Engle (TMF1000) chooses to focus on the firm's recurring revenues from royalties paid by existing licensees. In another comment on our boards, he points out that "patent license royalties from existing licenses will come in between $48 million and $48.5 million. Last year, the fourth quarter produced only $36.2 million in recurring royalty revenue. Even if they come in at the low end of guidance the company will have grown this important source of revenue over 32%. So, they are starting to accumulate a reliable source of revenue."
So really, depending on how you choose to look at the company -- one with lumpy revenues or one with a growing, recurring business underlying those lumps -- last week's announcement qualifies at worst as "no news," and at best as "good news." The only wrong way to look at this, it seems to me, is the view Wall Street is taking: that failure to hit an arbitrary number dreamed up by analysts, and unendorsed by the company, is a bad thing.
The Orders in the Delaware case were for: (1) granting pro hac admission and (2) giving Nokia more time to reply to IDCC's motion for stay on the arbitration issue. As to the latter, its moot since IDCC already won.
While I agree with your argument, I have been in cases where the Court has indicated that there is a stay in all respects, and thus it will not consider any arguments regardless of the nature.
The Delaware motion for summary judgment is well written, and presents good arguments. Of course, we need to see Nokia's response to fairly judge the validity of the claims. I think one of the biggest obstables may be getting the Court to consider it during the stay.
Up from $32.79 on good volume? What time did you start drinking this morning?
Plenty of 100 share trades continuining in AH, now in the high 28s.
Do either of you have any actual experience in this field, or are you just trying to understand technical jargon?
PACER Delaware: The Special Master has granted IDCC's request for a stay pending arbitration. Thus, there will no presumably be an arbitration on whether Nokia can use the Presentation documents in the various lawsuits. The Special Master provided, in dicta, a discussion on this, and seems to think IDCC will ultimately win this issue.
86 says Motion for leave to file Motion for Summary Judgment. Its on the docket, not the document itself.
There's been more activity in the Delaware case. Nokia filed objections to IDCC's deposition notices (this is routine). IDCC also filed for leave to move for summary judgment. This is more interesting. If IDCC were to file for and win summary judgment, the case is over. The timing is also noteworthy. IDCC is both seeking to win the case and have it stayed for arbitration at the same time. It is worth stating that summary judgment is often difficult to win. You basically have to show that there are no disputed facts and that under the law, you win given the undisputed facts.
I agree. Though, one wonders, if we are in such good shape in the Delaware case, why did we move for arbitration and to stay the case. It is interesting that this was filed after we won that order.
A party cannot request arbitration unless there is a contract binding the parties to arbitration. The only existing contract that I am aware of between Nokia and IDCC is the 2G settlement. So, I would assume that is the document upon which IDCC is relying on its arbitration request.
PACER: Delaware
There was an interesting special order entered yesterday. Apparently, the parties were fighting over whether Nokia had to first identify which patents are not essential and state why IDCC acted in bad faith in saying that it is, or whether IDCC has to first identify which patents are essential and provide prove of that. IDCC won this issue, and Nokia must, within 30 days, identify all patents that it contends are not essential and state why IDCC acted in bad faith that it is. IDCC also defeated Nokias attempts to get other discovery, such as settlement negotiation docs.
PACER DELAWARE
THe magistrate judge has set a telephone conference with the parties for early January to discuss "the status of the negotiations" and whether the parties would like a "spring mediation."
Now a sale at $31.52, must have been an anomoly.
Anything going on? Pre-market trade of down $0.57, though only 100 shares.
Unfortunately, federal courts do not move that fast, particularly around the holidays. I would not expect a ruling until at least early next year (and only then if there is no oral argument).