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.
lastchoice, I just reread the post I responded to. I thought it said that RIMM was down 80% premarket. I need to read more carefully and I disavow my original post. LOL!
Was this the hugh volume at the open today?
"1) Important: SEC suspends buyback restrictions!
A little-notice provision in the short-sale announcement by the SEC is a clause that is suspending restrictions that prevent companies from buying back their stock around the open and close, and removing volume restrictions.
This allows companies much more flexibility in buying back their stock. This is significant: there will be additional buyers at the open and close.
"
Thanks d
Nasdaq plumbing new lows
That is interesting. Did you get that message after you reviewed the order or when you placed it? I tried to see if I could short IDCC on Scottrade after reading your message and I did not get any message indicating that it could not be shorted when I reviewed the order. I, of course, did not attempt to place the order. Does anyone know of a reason that IDCC would not be shortable? Perhaps it is just on you particular trading site.
They haven't reported that they are settling with IDCC and that it will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars are they?
OT: Thank you enyaw! And now you know "the rest of the story"!
I notice that your information does not come from one of the major "news" media sources. Sadly, many of them could be known better as one of the major "propaganda" sources. The information you showed is something that is common knowledge to people familiar with the oil industry and it would be very easy to find by a responsible media or politicians that are not attempting to mislead the voting population.
Huge sums of money are paid for those leases just for the right to find out if there is enough producible oil to justify further investment. Today,in fact, much of the leases that have been sitting idle in the past are now seeing production activities because the price of oil has gotten high enough to make production profitable.
Jim, I have a 2G iPhone and I have noticed that I have a lot more problems staying connected lately than I had say a month ago and more. I've had the iPhone for about a year and though I've been wanting to upgrade to the 3G version, I travel to many places that still only have 2G coverage and so, I have held off. I believe the problems are related to the 3G network rollout and some bugs that have to be worked out. Some of the problems I have are have very poor connectivity even when I'm showing full bars on the phone display and other times when I'm showing no bars and connect fine.
I agree Andrew but still, I have it in my mind that it is what you would expect him to say publicly. While in negotiations with Samsung, IDCC would want to display both confidence and the image of a strong position. Any other projection would weaken one's negotiating position, IMO
Yes, a VERY good rebound, As you say, I hope it holds.
NeoInvestor, it did spike to $28.00 for an instant. Apparently someone placed a bid market price order. It was back down into the $26.00 range just as quickly. Anyone wanting to sell at that level did not get much of a chance.
I think that it would definitely jolt the stock price following todays news.
rob, I think a lot of people had their itch for a great buying opportunity relieved about two weeks ago. LOL
Without positive news, I believe you are right
bim, that is a very good point you make and it follows the one already made by whizzer. If Samsung were to be successful, the precedent would certainly become a double edged sword for Samsung. It also would really damage the ability of ALL companies that sought protection against violators of patent rights her in the US. IF the judge rules in favor of Samsung, the implications would be huge, IMO.
bim524 "I wonder if SAM/NOK realize that arguing out of both sides like this can harm future business, especially SAM, which has other huge businesses besides the mobile unit.
For instance, if for some reason the ITC rules that essentially means no injunction, other business within SAM would cry foul b/c they can no longer protect there products/patents."
whizzer "I strongly doubt that the ITC will announce a landmark decision that US companies that declare patents as essential to a standards body can no longer bring a claim to the ITC to enforce those patents against unlicensed foreign importers.
whizzer, I understand that there are special rules for the ITC hearings and there are timetables for submitting or introducing evidence and arguments. However, it seems to me that in this case, IDCC was somewhat disadvantaged while the hearings were taking place. In following the events and reports from the courtroom, on this message board, my understanding has been that IDCC did not know exactly what Sammy's arguments and evidence would be. Since the the testimony of Mr Ugone was on the last day, IDCC would not have much time to pull together countering arguments and evidence. I seem to remember that Samsung made an unopposed motion for admitting a late introduced witness. Was that Mr. Ugone? If so, wouldn't it be in the interest of fair justice that IDCC be able to have enough time to research and gather that countering information? Of course, we also don't yet know who were the witnesses in the other Samsung case but wouldn't it be interesting if it was Mr. Ugone himself?
Maybe they had not discovered it before now.
"why IDCC sprung this up after the fact is VERY lame"
Desert, there was a lot more to the QCOM/NOK settlement that just royalty rate, if I read the release and follow up news correctly. NOK ceding over technology rights and perhaps entering into chip deals make it less clear, IMO, that this agreement, if it entails lower rates, will hurt IDCC's position.
Thank you Ronny.
lastchoice, that was an interesting comment you just made.
"between trading their essential patents,..... nok probably secured a lower rate"
How much was it worth to NOK to avoid the UK trial with IDCC that was to challenge the "essentiality" of their patents?
One thing I have a slight concern about is the TDD technology that NOK had developed for them by IDCC under their engineering contract. I don't remember the details of that agreement such as; could NOK transfer that tech to another company? If so, could such a transfer somehow weaken IDCC's position with NOK and others who license with QCOM?
STINVESTOR, that is why I said in my post:
" DOJ investigation or some other to see how many members of Congress are heavily invested in hedge funds."
I agree with you completely and no, I don't trust anyone in Government, though I do think there are some honest politicians. (Hmnn..."honest politician"; isn't that an oxymoron? LOL)
OH! I see....Hmnn. Thanks Magilla
Have you ever wondered why congress allowed the uptick rule to be removed and have seemed blind to the incidence of naked shorting of stocks despite the devastation it has had on the markets? I would love to see a DOJ investigation or some other to see how many members of Congress are heavily invested in hedge funds.
I doubt that the Chinese would let that happen. Spreadtrum is one of the Chinese darling companies. I'm pretty sure China wants to keep it's "homegrown" TD-CDMA chip technology "homegrown". However, an equity stake in the company I think might be a possibility.
Earlier today, I posted where Alkatel/Lucent had signed an agreement to invest 1 billion dollars in infrastructure for TD-CDMA in China. That's the only thing I could come up with that might explain the jump in SPRD share price. It does indicate a big vote of confidence in the future of TD-CDMA, IMO. Chinese TD-SCDMA phones will likely use Spreadtrum chips. Again, IMO.
"hmmm...IDCC buys SPRD..?"
Could this piece of news have anything to do with SPRD jumping like it has today?
"News Story
Alcatel-Lucent Inks USD1bn Agreement with China Mobile
Wednesday June 18, 2008 04:35:42 EDT
BEIJING, Jun 18, 2008 (SinoCast China IT Watch via COMTEX News Network) --
Alcatel-Lucent inked a framework agreement valued at USD 1 billion for this year with China Mobile in Washington on June 16, 2008.
Its China flagship unit Alcatel Shanghai Bell Co., Ltd. will ensure the implement of the framework agreement. The company is glad to continue supplying solutions and services to China Mobile, one of its strategic partners, noted Olivia Qiu, president of Alcatel Shanghai Bell.
Under the agreement, the overseas company will supply mobile communication facilities and service to the Chinese mobile telecom carrier, including core network solutions, wireless network solutions, TD-SCDMA equipment, application, transmission, IP routers and related services.
Those advantaged products and solutions will further help improve its network performance and offer high-quality services to terminal users.
China Mobile, the largest mobile telecom operator in the country, is permitted to take over China Tietong as a wholly- owned subsidiary according to the previously unveiled plan for the Chinese telecom industry reshuffle.
From www.enet.com.cn, Page 1, Tuesday, June 17, 2008
info@SinoCast.com
http://it.quote.com/news/story.action?id=CIT170h2079
There must be something at the analyst day that someone likes. 88,000 shares went in about the first minute or so. Thats about 1/3 recent daily volume.
Next resistance is $6.41 but, IMO, it should get to around $7 or better. I did buy several thousand shares about a week ago.
Very interesting. Spreadtrum is up nearly 10% and has already traded it's recent daily volume. No news.
While there presently is no way to be sure, I believe this is one of the major reasons the IDCC/NOK legal action in the UK was settled. If IDCC had been successful in having a large portion of NOK's patents found non-essential, NOK would have lost much of the foundation for their arguments. It also would have put NOK at a disadvantage in it's case against QCOM.
"Nokia claims it is the number one IPR holder in the WCDMA standard and technology, with more than 25 percent of the essential patents registered so far with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB), and Telecommunications Technology Committee (TTC) standardization bodies."
Thanks, Data
If that's the case then I guess the staff feels he should oppose and vote to override the democratic decisions of the ETSI body
What is important is that I believe the staff bought that whole argument about the 5% cap based on the questions he asked Dr, Ugone
deleted by me
loophole, I have always had great interest in your postings and have gained insight into the legal intricacies of IDCC's legal battles. One of the reasons I have enjoyed them is the sound logic that supports your ideas. I have no particular legal knowledge but the reasoning of this last post seems impeccable and very compelling to me. I SINCERELY hope that you do send that idea directly to Mr Shay at IDCC.
Fantastic post!
I might add that if the ETSI felt that FRAND entailed keeping all royalties within a 5% envelope, that too would have been written into the standards. Why didn't the members of MENS demand that when they, as you say, accepted IDCC and the other contributors to the standard, proposals.
You can't hear me but there is a very hearty round of applause here. Thanks so much.
Loop, As I read about IDCC's lawyers slower retrieval of information, it occurred to me that the reason was because Samsung was on the attack and knew what they would be presenting before they entered into the courtroom. IDCC, on the other hand, would be on the defensive, having to respond to Samsung's allegations. They would not know what they would be bringing up until they saw what Samsung had. I of course don't have any idea whether this is correct though. I wish we knew how things went on other days because you would like to thing that IDCC was on the offensive at times too.
IMO, it'll be when they dig deeper and find out the full extent of Jim's relations ship with the Maxim model, the campaign will end as quickly as its brilliant beginning. Studley Lurgio; Shooting Star!
loop, I agree with you. The only thing I see is that Samsungs assertion that it should get what everyone else has gotten flies in the face of the reasoning that has been floated around here that IDCC should be able to up the royalty rate for a user that did not voluntarily license or didn't make IDCC drag them to court before relenting. One way or another though, I am getting more and more comfortable that IDCC will get paid eventually.
ShallowMind, Your post is a little insulting. Since I have been invested in this stock beginning in 2000, and following it by way of this board back when it was hosted by Raging Bull, I'm well aware that IDCC's value goes way beyond it's contribution to the iPhone. I wouldn't even be investing in the stock or worry about discussing it if that was all it offered. It is the accumulation of everything IDCC purportedly has going for it that has my interest. However, I also think you very well may be underestimating the importance of this event. The problem is that so much of whether IDCC is in fact achieving success is cloaked in secrecy. Anything that is confirmed, such as, is IDCC's technology part of the iPhone, helps give clues to some of the other things we are trying to figure out.
Would there be two IFX chips in the iPhone, one for 2G and the other for 3G in order to lower the commission that IDCC receives, thereby lowering Apple's cost?