$26.09, over 1.19 million shares traded eom

OT-if anyone wants more dead-horse beating...

...about Cramer's bullishness on the overall market plus the pain the shorts are feeling, let me know and I will paste some more of his columns from Monday. He is really going off on the shorts!!

For those who skipped over my previous post, it illustrates what many of us have been commenting on these past few weeks regarding people who are short stocks. A lot of newbies have been making money the past 3 years by shorting, just like a lot of newbies made money from 1995 to the end of 1999 by going long via stock tips from the likes of their cousin's barber and Barbra Streisand.

Those newbies are feeling pain right now. If there are a lot of newbie shorts in IDCC, which there probably are, they could be feeling INTENSE pain in the coming weeks.

A Chronicle of the Shift Away From Shorts

By James J. Cramer
05/05/2003 11:21 AM EDT
Click here for more stories by James J. Cramer

The obvious nature of the negativity should have hit me when I spoke at an investor conference in Dallas last February.

I had just finished giving my outlook when a young woman approached me and said she was making money hand over fist on the short side. I saluted her, but urged her not to be greedy.

She told me she had a home-run short going. Ahh, I said, what might that be? She answered, Expedia (EXPE:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis). What's the matter with Expedia? I asked her. She seemed shocked that I even had to ask. "No one is going to travel with this war on the horizon."

Yes, I said, but that might be priced into the stock. She laughed. See, she knew what I didn't, which was that the short side had worked for three years and it will continue to work.

Three years ago, I said, I had heard the same argument from momentum folks who said it had worked, so it would continue to work. She hadn't been trading three years ago, so she didn't know what I was talking about. She wanted me to bless the Expedia trade, but I couldn't. I'd heard that same short argument about Expedia from a half-dozen hedge funds. In fact, I didn't know anyone who was long the darned thing except Barry Diller. But I knew plenty of shorts!

Plenty of shorts. That's the theme this year. It has been the theme all year. Hedge funds. Daytraders. Everyone's short. They are short the airlines. They are short the phone companies. They are short the HMOs. They are short the single-digit midgets. They are short the telco providers and the wireless plays. They are short the power merchant companies.

And they don't understand what happens when things get virtuous. They don't understand how they can be fodder for a year's worth of gains.

I harp on things for a reason. In 1991, I heard from neophytes and pros alike about how terrific it was to be short the banks. They were coining money. They were like that nice young woman who informed me about Expedia. They were wet-behind-the-ears short. They had no idea what it's like when too many people are short stocks.

The exact same trend is playing out now. The shorts in the power merchants are dying. The shorts in the airlines? They will be right, but no one will be alive by the time they get there. And the pain in these telco shorts? Just dreadful.

I keep waiting for someone to say "Jim, this time is different than 1991," as people did so often before the war. But they don't anymore. Because history can't be lied about forever.

Let me go out on a limb. You know what's next to run? Ford (F:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis). People are still short that sucker. I can't think of a reason to be long it. There are pension problems and market share problems and asbestos problems and balance sheet problems.

You know what? One of these big mutual funds is going to go and buy 5% of the company. And the stock isn't going to look back. Back at my hedge fund I can just see myself saying to Matt "Automan" Jacobs, "find me a reason to get long Ford." He would be shaking his head, no doubt complaining to Berko behind my back about it.

But I'd be right. Everyone would be angry at me for my lack of rigor. But I would be right.

And we'd all make a lot of money, so in the end we'd all end up happy.

Random musings: Last month Ellen Wilson wrote one of those "fundamentals are as good as they get" pieces about the HMOs at Bernstein. At the time I criticized the piece as being something we HMO longs would just have to battle through.

FWIW...Here is what a money manager says
Dismantling the Arguments Against Option Expensing

By Arne Alsin
Special to RealMoney.com
05/02/2003 11:00 AM EDT
Click here for more stories by Arne Alsin
The Financial Accounting Standards Board, commonly known as FASB, has spoken, voting unanimously to require expensing of stock options. Now FASB is in the rulemaking phase, with implementation of option expensing expected sometime next year.

But a campaign to overturn FASB is already under way with a vengeance. Several dozen politicians -- such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Sen. John Ensign (R., Nev.), Rep. David Dreier (R., Calif.) and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D., Calif.) -- have been recruited to thwart FASB's efforts. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to delay FASB action for at least three years to "study" the effects of option expensing.


Tall Tales


As part of the campaign against FASB, options advocates have foisted falsehoods and half-truths on the media. Here are a few gems:


It's mystifying to many as to why the FASB has the foot on the accelerator, speeding to rush this in.

-- Jeff Peck, Washington lobbyist for a coalition working against option expensing

Hardly "speeding," the FASB began reviewing accounting for stock options back in 1984. After many years of considerable debate, FASB attempted to require option expensing in 1993, only to back down in the face of severe pressure from Congress, the Securities and Exchange Commission and hordes of lobbyists backed by the tech industry. Proposed legislation would have pulled accounting rulemaking authority from the SEC and FASB and handed it to a political body. Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt decided to cut and run, a decision he now admits was a big mistake.

In assailing the FASB plan to require expensing, stock-option aficionados suggest that economic calamity will result. Cisco (CSCO:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis) CEO John Chambers said, "Jobs would go in the first decade, followed by the companies" and option expensing would be "the engineering and high-tech job export act of 2003."

Sen. Boxer said, "Given FASB's history on stock options, I am not surprised that they ruled to expense them ... however, FASB admits that it doesn't take into account the economic impact of its decision."Piling On

This "economic impact" theme was taken up this week by CEO Jack Gifford of Maxim Integrated Products (MXIM:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis). He took time out in this week's earnings release to mount his soapbox and lash out:


Our nation's technology leadership over the past 15 years has caused some to forget the economic effect during the 1970s of our country's losing our technology leadership to Japan. Entrepreneurial individuals and companies, given incentive by stock options, reversed this situation. This impact on the U.S. economy and its people in the 1970s has been too easily forgotten.

By the way, as I pointed out in a past column, both Cisco and Maxim have reason to be biased against expensing options. I explained that, for the preceding five years, Cisco reported more than $9.6 billion in income and Maxim more than $1.4 billion in income, but neither company generated any income when adjusted for the cost of options, according to my calculations.

The economic calamity argument is silly, of course. To subvert accounting standards -- which are necessarily agnostic -- for the tech industry's benefit, is the real calamity. To the extent that accounting standards are compromised, we all lose.

But there's more. Intel (INTC:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis) CEO Craig Barrett trotted out this tired argument against expensing: "Stock options do not create a cash cost like salaries or rent."

As I mentioned in a prior column, this is a common but nonsensical argument. Lots of accounting has no cash outlay, such as deferred compensation, interest expense on zero-coupon bonds and pension-plan expense. Taken to its logical extreme, this argument suggests that bartering is the way to avoid expense. Why not pay all wages in stock, thereby avoiding all compensation costs?

The opponents of option expensing continually harp on the difficulty of measuring option cost. In alluding to that difficulty, Barrett said, "I know of no situation where it would be acceptable for a CEO to certify that a company's results were 'kind of right' ... results that are kind of right aren't good enough."

This argument is specious: Financial statements are full of estimates, assumptions and, yes, guesstimates. Second, Barrett already certifies financials where stock-option expense is communicated in the form of footnotes. Does moving the same information from a footnote to the income statement change the character of the information? Is the information accurate when reported in the footnotes -- such that he can certify those statements -- but not when the same information is included in the income statement?

I'm hopeful that FASB will not be detoured because of political pressure this time around. When the grab for shareholder property is front and center for shareholders to see, my guess is that the days of handing out option grants like candy will be a distant memory.

As we used to say, in my days as a CPA, what gets measured, gets controlled.

By the way, I'm looking forward to being on "Kudlow & Cramer" tonight on CNBC! Also, I'm the next in the lineup for the RealMoney chat series, and I'm looking forward to talking live with readers later this month. Details and registration information will be available soon.

Arne Alsin is the founder and principal of Alsin Capital Management, an Oregon-based investment advisor and portfolio manager of The Turnaround Fund, a no-load mutual fund. At time of publication, neither Alsin nor ACM held a position in any securities mentioned in this column, although holdings can change at any time. Under no circumstances does the information in this column represent a recommendation to buy or sell stocks. Alsin appreciates your feedback and invites you to send it to arne@alsincapital.com. Click here to receive Arne's latest favorite stock picks from his newsletter, The Turnaround Report.

no prob Dish,

upon re-reading my post it was easy to see how it could be interpreted either way--something that would be immediately clarified in a verbal discussion

As broken80 just said, it's just a question of the amount being excessive or not. I have decided that I don't want my shares being diluted to that proportion. If IDCC has achieved its (and our) goals by ASM 2004, one or two million additional shares wouldn't be unreasonable.

As for expensing options, IMO the right way to do that is pretty hard to quantify, don't know if it can be done properly

dish

you are definitely jumping to the wrong conclusions in that you assumed that I implied the IDCC option issue was in any way illegal. I was just comparing your logic to hypothetical logic of the brokerage analysts, nothing more. Obviously nothing any IDCC execs did was illegal regarding options

All the best, from the pure unadulterated driveler

<<That doesn't make it right. If one applies that same analogy to the big brokerage houses, then it was OK for one major analyst to pound the table to the public to buy recommended overvalued and overhyped stocks (in order for the brokerage to get the investment banking money), and all the while disparaging the stocks in internal company e-mails. Just because one brokerage house did it, doesn't make it right for all of them to have done it.
All the best,
walldiver>>

Dish...

<<InterDig is doing the same thing tech companies everywhere are doing.>>

That doesn't make it right. If one applies that same analogy to the big brokerage houses, then it was OK for one major analyst to pound the table to the public to buy recommended overvalued and overhyped stocks (in order for the brokerage to get the investment banking money), and all the while disparaging the stocks in internal company e-mails. Just because one brokerage house did it, doesn't make it right for all of them to have done it.

All the best,
walldiver

jimlur, my 14,000 shares will vote NO on increasing the shares outstanding by 5 million shares. Fellow investors, I think IDCC is a greatly undervalued stock, and I want more from the pie. I also believe that a final tally favoring the YES votes is NOT a rubber stamp. If the BOD of one of the Baby Bells loses out on their option plan, then so can IDCC. Our engineers and BOD will survive on their current plan, and they won't be going anywhere, either. Everybody else is laying people off!

I would be inclined to be more generous next year if the stock price is north of 50 and if the incentive plan is for 1 or 2 million shares

Heres's a great "Dear Abby" letter:
Dear Abby,
I am a crack dealer in New Jersey who has recently been diagnosed as a
carrier of the HIV virus. My parents live in a suburb of Philadelphia
and one of my sisters, who lives in Bensenville, is married to a
transvestite.

My father and mother have recently been arrested for growing and selling marijuana and are currently dependent on my other two sisters, who are prostitutes in Jersey City.

I have two brothers. One is currently serving a non-parole life
sentence in Attica for murder of a teenage boy in 1994. The other
brother is currently being held in the Wellington Remand Center on
charges of sexual misconduct with his three children.

I have recently become engaged to marry a prostitute who
lives in the Bronx and is still a part time "working girl" in a brothel.
Her time there is limited as we hope to open our own brothel with her as the working manager. I am hoping my two sisters would be interested in joining our team. Although I would prefer them not to prostitute themselves, it would get them off the street, and hopefully, the heroin habits.

All thing considered, my main problem is this. I love my fiancee and
look forward to bringing her into the family and I certainly want to be
totally honest with her.

Should I tell her about my distant cousin who is French?
Signed,
Worried About My Reputation

as for selling puts...

the best bet IMO would be selling naked puts that expire in Jan 2005. You collect the most premium and give the IDCC team the most time to collect on their IPR. Depending on your own situation and risk tolerance, you could take a look at selling puts at the strike prices anywhere from 15 to 30. The higher the strike price, the more money that gets deposited immediately in your account (and also the more money you'll have to come up with if IDCC closes below the strike price that day).

You may need special approval from your broker to do this, but if you believe in the IDCC story, you can get paid good money while you wait. Just make sure you have enough dough in your account in case the stock gets put to you after the close of trading on the 3rd Friday of January 2005.

This is a high-risk, high-reward strategy if one is bullish

OT-options expiration brief primer

Options Speculation Is What's Hurting FleetBoston

By James J. Cramer
04/17/2003 02:08 PM EDT
Click here for more stories by James J. Cramer

FleetBoston (FBF:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) is not going down because of the specialist issue. Maybe a Fleet specialist front-ran GE (GE:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) order flow. Maybe he didn't.

Nope, the stock is going down because someone is selling a ton of April 25 calls and he is pressuring the stock to close at its strike.

Let me explain.

First, today is expiration day. That means if you bought April 25 calls some time ago betting that perhaps FleetBoston would get a takeover bid, you are stuck with a difficult decision today: Do you exercise the calls and come in long a boatload of FleetBoston on Monday?

Or do you just blow them out and forget about the trade? (You could also roll them over, but I'm not seeing that.) I think speculators who buy this kind of contract are very unlikely to exercise and buy all that common. That's out of style with that kind of call owner/speculator.

So what do you do? You sell them. The common stock started at $25.30 today. The call was at about 30 cents, known as parity.

If you sell those calls, who buys them? One possibility is that the person who sold you the calls -- probably at a steep price when the takeover premium was hefty -- stayed short the calls. That person could now cover the short into your selling.

It's more than likely, though, that the people who sold them are long gone, unless you did it with a dealer with infinite patience.

Far more likely, the person who is buying them is buying them and selling common stock against them. That person would be long call, short stock. For most of the morning, before the ramp up, this looked like a darned good trade. You could buy a call for 25 or 30 cents and sell common for a like amount. If the common fell apart for the rest of the day, you have a risk-free short. Maybe it breaks to $24.50 and that's a home run.

More likely, though, all the call-buyer is doing is pressuring the common lower now. He's long call and banging out common and putting a lid on the stock. He's pressuring the stock to go out at $25. What happens at $25? He can exercise the call and flatten out vs. the sold common. If the stock goes below $25 on its own volition, he's got that risk-free short for the afternoon going again. Either way, the pressure is on for the stock to go out at the strike because the call-seller is unloading.

What can you do about these kinds of situations? I used to love these when I was at my hedge fund where I had tons of capital and could afford to take swings. I would see that the banks were all higher today except for Fleet. I would assess the specialist scandal: nil to earnings.

I'd then look at the puts and calls to see what they said. This one says there is a large call-seller pressuring the stock. I would then go buy the stock as close to that strike as I could, betting that it would pop when the pressure lifts on Monday. Of course, I wouldn't know how much the seller had, but I'd be willing to sit for a weekend on the stock if I liked it. And I like FleetBoston very much.

Is it an edge? Yes, a small one. More important, it helps explain that the stock is going down not because of the specialist fracas, but simply because someone speculated on the calls -- and got it wrong.

IMO we are underestimating the end of quarter window dressing buying (after the ERICY news) that took the stock from 19 to 24. A lot of the sales today probably were by people or funds that bought 3/17 to 3/31.

Much of the drop today obviously is due to the insider selling news, plus the bit in the 10K about Sharp expiring (which we here already knew about). The market hates uncertainty.

The best new is that Carpenter thinks that the Sharp agreement for PHS and PDC will be extended pretty soon. He seems to be plugged into KOP pretty well.

I'm still holding, I may sell some Jan 2005 puts if stupid Schwab ever approves me for Level 3 options.

Hi wireless, Jeff Cooper's columns have been switched to Realmoney's extra premium content, which costs a minimum of $80 per month and is mainly for traders. I don't subscribe to that service, don't know if Ed does as I've never seen him post anything from it.

ellismd or anyone, can you please e-mail me the TC report

walldiver@yahoo.com

Thanks in advance, as I'll be on the road tomorrow and won't be able to thank anyone then. I think we must have lost a few claims during the PSJ phase, otherwise the settlement amount would have been a lot more.

IMO,

Bert

I would expect the market to bounce for awhile on Monday, hopefully taking IDCC with it, due to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad. This guy and Imad Mugniyeh are the world's two most capable terrorists. This is a huge blow to Al Qaeda, possibly bigger than the capture of Bin Laden would be.

The coming week could be the last full week of trading before the invasion of Iraq. For those waiting in the wings for cheaper shares, you should seriously consider getting in before Friday.

All IMO

Best wishes to all, especially those with loved ones about to be put in harm's way, my thoughts go out to you and to them.

I guess we're in the year 1996 now, if you believe the author, but I like the gist of the story:
<<The US Company's claims first aired in 1993. The case was due to open on Monday, February 17th. The US Company lost a similar action last year against Motorola.>>

Either the analysts are expecting a multi-year settlement payout structured so that ERICY doesn't have to take a big hit all at once, or they're not aware of the "smoking guns."

<<The analysts anticipate marginal impact of Interdigital's US litigation issue on the company. The costs, in case of a loss for Ericsson, are not expected to exceed the provisions, add the analysts.>>

Ericsson's Days As a Bellwether May Be Over
By Kenneth Li
Senior Writer
02/03/2003 04:59 PM EST
[from thestreet.com]-walldiver
Updated from 8:36 a.m. LM Ericsson's (ERICY:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis) days as an industry barometer may be all but over, its latest earnings show.

Ericsson said its fourth-quarter loss ballooned to 8.3 billion kronor ($969 million), while sales fell 37% to 36.7 billion kronor, compared with a net loss of 3.5 billion kronor and sales of 58.5 billion kronor in the same period last year.

While traders in years past would scour the company's statements for industry trends, Ericsson's earnings statement created nary a ripple in the world of telecommunications stocks. That's because the company now derives more than 80% of its revenue from the struggling wireless-gear sector, compared with Nokia's approximate 20% or Motorola's 17% exposure to the category.

Indeed, after linking up with Sony(SNE:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) to form a handset joint venture, the company's focus has veered away from handsets. It now dominates the market for wireless-infrastructure equipment with a 30%-plus market share.

Ericsson essentially confirmed Nokia's recent projections of a 10% decline in wireless-infrastructure equipment sales in 2003, but only Ericsson's stock suffered from the news.

Ericsson's American Depositary Receipts fell 8.5% to $7.43 in late trading, while shares of competing network-gear providers moved into positive territory. Nortel (NT:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) gained 1.7% to $2.41, while Lucent (LU:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) added 1.1% to $1.88. Nokia (NOK:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) inched up 0.4% to $14.45, and Motorola (MOT:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) gained 2.4% to $8.17.

"Ericsson is the most exposed of any of the other companies [in the wireless sector] to the problems they're facing right now," said Gerard Klauer Mattison telecom equipment analyst John Bucher. "It's much more of a pure play in wireless infrastructure. These guys feel it worse than anyone else."

James Faucette, an analyst with Pacific Crest Securities, said, "It's [no longer] a barometer for the industry. Ericsson used to be the No. 2 handset maker in the world, with 20% market share. Now, [the joint venture] has less than 5%. In 2003, you're going to have a terrible year for [wireless] infrastructure, whereas for the handset side it'll be a good year."

Handset sales are projected to grow at least 10% this year, according to Nokia and Motorola estimates. In the face of slowing new-subscriber growth, handset makers are hoping current consumers will begin to replace aging phones with new models built with color screens and cameras. At the same time, the business of selling wireless switches and transmitters continues to suffer from spending reductions from nearly every wireless operator across the globe. Most recently, AT&T Wireless slashed its new-equipment spending by nearly a third to about $3 billion for 2003.

Ericsson predicted that first-quarter sales would be 30% lower than its fourth-quarter sales. The company expects to reach break-even on continued heavy cost-cutting this year.

To be sure, some industry watchers say the reason sector shares didn't fall Monday may have been because much of the bad news on telecom equipment already has been baked into stock prices. Nokia, for instance, has seen its shares tumble about 3% since it declared another abysmal year for its equipment business on Jan. 23. Likewise, Motorola shares have been clipped 7.4% since it announced earnings on Jan. 21. Gerard Klauer Mattison's Bucher said the companies have "already taken their licks."

Peter Friedland, a wireless analyst at WR Hambrecht, agrees. He said Nokia stock has already "taken a beating" over the past month.

"Disposition: DNS." = either "dispute not settled" or "did not settle"

that's my guess

I forgot to login, and I read that a certain poster stated that IDCC's beta was 5. Teecee corrected that with the beta from Bloomberg of 1.44.

What this means of course is that the "5" statement was wildly wrong, as usual.

OT-I don't believe F6 was referring to you eom

he now has many followers in the business world, he wrote The Art of War hundreds of years ago

Night all, looking fwd to the short interest numbers coming out tomorrow, I bet they increased.

The Mother Of All Short Squeezes is coming

Mickey, that reminded me of something I was going to post and forgot--doesn't short interest come out tomorrow? I bet it increased from 11/30 to 12/31. You gotta love it!!

dagrinch, agreed. I've come to believe that IDCC execs and F&J are practicing the Sun Tzu philosophy.

It's not really that important, especially for investment purposes. Bad manners and personal attacks over differences in opinion just leave a bad taste in my mouth. They also tend to discourage forgotten information or new, positive angles on investments that can be brought to light via intelligent debate. Sometimes message boards can get caught up in a positive feedback loop to a point that newly revealed, detrimental information blindsides the board. This happened a couple times to me in my early days of biotech investing, when the slogan "It's the science, stupid!" should have been "It's the FDA, stupid!"

I obviously don't think that's happening here

sjratty, I would tend to agree with infinite q on this one, someone recently posted the specific patents involved in MOT and ERICY and I believe the only one in common was the 089. IMO if IDCC gets satisfaction from ERICY there is still a chance we can get something from MOT for 2g in the US, plus a bigger chance for collecting outside the US. I don't remember what you posted re infringement outside the US.

This is beneath us. Let's stop making these juvenile, irritating personal attacks. This is the best board on the net, the respected financial writer John Rubino is even interested in writing a story about this board if and when IDCC gets what it has earned. Let's earn his respect.

Geez!

PS-jk, this isn't directed at your recent post

wilco, I hope that you understand that one person's "search for truth" consists of asking meaningless questions, while another search for truth consists of taking the time to wade through thousands of pages of legal documents at a courthouse

OT-Iraq Rumor False
1/14/03 10:02 AM ET

Dow Jones is reporting that the rumor about inspectors being asked to leave Iraq is false. Farhan Haq, spokesman for the UN Secretary General's office stated, "We've checked with UNMOVIC, the UN weapons inspection group, and they're unaware of any pullout of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq."

The markets have spiked up as this news hit the wires.

Iraq rumor giving us longs a chance to pick up cheap shares. Rumored on RealMoney.com Trading Track a few minutes ago that Iraq has asked all UN inspectors to leave the country, hopefully this will turn out to be untrue but it did cause IDCC's stock to drop

to the Three Princes--jk, chartex, greg gohrs
My heartfelt thanks for all your efforts! Renntech, welcome back!

walldiver

Isn't Notebaert the current CEO of Qwest? eom

teecee, me too! EOM

teecee, I think it's going to be twice that spread over at least 8 years (same amount per year). Looks like the infringement has been going since at least 1986. Wasn't it almost all TDMA in the beginning? I think F&J is holding some Swedish feet to the fire.

All IMO

ams, JKjones went to the courthouse on Friday...
made copies, and posted a summary of the IDCC/ERICY exhibits. The board has been going over them, and it doesn't look real promising for ERICY, to say the least. Their only chance appears to be if the judge throws out a whole bunch of what could be "smoking gun" documents. The case also goes back to the mid-80s with a lot of communications between IDCC (then IMM) and ERICY. I strongly urge you to read all of the posts since Friday afternoon, I believe a substantial part of your doubts may be assuaged...

jk, thank you thank you thank you for your efforts!
Did I thank you enough?

walldiver

croth, ERICY's financial condition is a big factor in the belief of many of us that a settlement with IDCC may end up being structured as a payout over a longer time-frame, perhaps in the ballpark of 5 to 10 years.

art, here is what was written:
sjratty, please forgive my interpretation if it's wrong...
"2) Insider selling. A review of the insiders who sold reveals that there are individuals whom I believe would have to know whether a settlement was imminent. If these insiders knew a settlement was imminent, I don't believe SEC rules would allow them sell. On the other hand, if they knew a trial was coming, they could sell."

It was sjratty's opinion that any IDCC insiders who knew that a settlement was coming and then sold stock would be breaking the law. sjratty indicated that he believed a settlement was NOT imminent at this time, which means no illegal actions by IDCC insiders