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.
Who are the major video compression players?
Since you've learned the phrase "video compression", and apparently are familiar with IDCC's contribution to this vast area of technology, what magnitude of revenues should we expect IDCC to derive from video compression, and when?
He's a small cap swing trader,usually short, and knows nothing about the company.Now that we broke out of the previous trading range, not to the downside as he vehemently predicted, you won't see him around here again.Just one more message board "maven".
One has to "believe" (or not) because no evidence sufficient to convince a rational person, exists. Or, more directly stated, the rhetoric about their 3G and 4G patent portfolios has never matched the revenues.
Funny, he was here often to tout his "double top", "ascending wedge", and "next stop in the 30's". So much for his chart interpretations, and fundamental ignorance.
You forgot the most important difference - Qualcomm's pioneering inventions and extensions are far more commercially valuable, as assessed by the engineers and attorneys of potential licensees. Incidentally, they were originally sued by Ericsson, yet Ericsson capitulated to them, and settled on the courthouse steps. (That's also where Nokia settled their relicensing dispute.)
Mickey, did it ever occur to you that the insider purchases were made in an effort to keep their jobs, which were clearly in jeopardy after the failure of the effort to sell the company? When the SA's were called off, they issued upbeat earnings at the same time, to put a floor under the stock, but held back the downward guidance until yesterday, so as to not shock the market on the day the SA announcement was made. Take off those rose colored glasses.
So you reference a 9 year old article, in which a U.S. Congressman argued ineffectively for using American technology in post-war Iraq, rather than European technology? Issa has absolutely nothing to do with Qualcomm's success, nor InterDigital's struggles.
Precisely how does Issa play into your paranoid, conspiracy fantasy?
I think that management would have been more than happy to state that offers had been made, but were unacceptable. That would have been far more reassuring than stating no offers had been made.
Also forgotten is the unequivocal fact that no one, including private entity, submitted even a single low ball offer for the IDCC patent portfolio.
Those are trailing P/E's, but the market values growth and forward projections. Where will IDCC's growth come from this year if Nokia and LG are unsigned, and Samsung comes off license at year end? They are going in the wrong direction, and the market doesn't reward uncertainty as to future earnings. And, the failure to elicit even a single bid for IDCC's patent portfolio will not instill confidence in its value.
$800 million is the size of their "opportunity", not a projection of probable revenue. You take their best-case-scenario number, and then call it sandbagging? When are you, Mickey, and the rest of the pumpers going to stop spreading such nonsense?
Wake up, man. There were no offers. No one offered a dime. Pumping unrealistic expectations won't change that reality.
Zero offers, no consortia. It's obvious they dragged it out long enough to toss up preliminary earnings, in hopes of avoiding a total meltdown. All of the pumpers couldn't have been more mistaken.
You forgot to include the key word - "opportunity". How nebulous, meaningless, and incapable of rescuing this tug.
Is King of Prussia located on the banks of de Nile? If this represents "a position of strength", like Clontz claims, I don't want to know his concept of weakness.
You both know nothing of the realities of docket congestion. The system is overloaded, and underfunded. That is the reality.
Maybe you think it's easy handling a large caseload of complex legal, procedural, scientific, and factual disputes, all with voluminous records below, and high powered lawyering, on declining budgets? Well, it isn't. You act like every other case on their docket should be less important than this one. The wheels of justice are slow, but they grind fine.
Are we in the 30's yet? Our technical swing trader "guru" said we had a double top, with a bearish ascending wedge, and that we were headed down hard. That was in November. Are we there yet? I thought such patterns purported to anticipate short term moves.
Whatever she does, she won't be overruled. This case will never be accepted for cert by the SCOTUS.
You've been harping bearish technicals since November, and have yet to be correct on QCOM. Three months of misinterpreted charting is long enough to put you on ignore. I suppose eventually you'll get it right, like a broken clock. How's that short position working for you?
The unredacted briefs used by the CAFC would not have changed - only the redacted version intended for public viewing. That would have no affect on the decision time.
The judges don't review, nor decide cases based upon, redacted briefs. Those are for the public record, only.
The past is prologue to the future.
Mickey, what about their relative successes in licensing did you not understand? That "narrowband" slam from message board mavens was proven ludicrous by the IPR licensing marketplace over more than a decade now. Way past time for you to give up that ghost, and face reality.
"Someone mentioned $5 or $6bil"? What's that supposed to mean? No one outside the process has any idea whether any offer has been received, nor for how much. All the rest is pure speculation, devoid of substance.
...an NPE, duh... and Qualcomm is not.
Reading comprehension is not one of your strengths.
I have never called InterDigital a "patent troll". That is a derogatory slur used by companies that tend to misappropriate IPR from "non-practicing entities".
"Patent troll" is a derogatory term for "non-practicing entities" (NPE's), who assert patents, yet manufacture and sell no products incorporating their intellectual property. InterDigital is, but Qualcomm is not.
This is the big glamor event of the industry, where CEO's of Microsoft, Qualcomm, Intel, and all the other mobile players will be drinking, schmoozing, exploring deals, and solidifying relationships. That's where Merrit needs to be. Any BOD duties can be handled by phone or e-mail.
IDCC has a booth at CES. Why wouldn't Merrit attend? Certainly his $1 mil carries some obligations to promote the business.
You apparently know nothing of the depth and importance of Nortel's IPR.
Jim, IDCC does not license at the chipset level (other than licensing its own software stack), and Qualcomm makes no relevant products except chipsets. It is up to the subscriber unit, and infrastructure manufacturers/sellers, to obtain an IDCC license.
Has the number of patents granted to Interdigital been relevant to its ability to sign and resign licenses for 3G and 4G, or in the implied rates it has achieved?
Patent counting is irrelevant to the market value of a patent portfolio.
Fish, only Owen Marshall had one case to deal with at a time. Both the underfunded courts, and the overworked lawyers, have many fires to put out at once. Despite NukeJohn's having oversold his expectations for a quick decision, the "system" is operating within a reasonable time frame, under the circumstances.
Someone remind me how many years ago that number was pulled from -er- the sky, and what possible relevance it has to their present "market value" for friendly sale?
Flarion had the only commercial mobile OFDMA product in the world, FLASH-OFDM, and had solved the 4G handoff problem. They had (now Qualcomm has) the pioneerining, foundational patents and engineers for all mobile OFDMA systems. Andy Viterbi, one of Qualcomm's founders, was Chairman of the Board. The Flarion IPR does not function as a separate licensing business, but rather is offered along with all internally developed patents as a "license one, get them all" product for 4G stand alone licensing, and for all 3G/4G multi-mode products.You like to throw around the terms "foundational" and "pioneering", but they truly apply to Flarion. It was a unique, one-off purchase, for a little over $800 mil, including all IPR, products, and OFDMA engineers.