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.
All, watchout for PARTY POOPERS. They pretend to be presenting genuine doubts, but, in reality they are acting with an agenda. The least they could do is wait till Tuesday for more details....but, NO, they rather decided to get a head start on negative campaign. I am waiting on IDCC's management to give them a fitting answer to put an end to this ordeal forever.
There is a thin line between being realistic and pessimistic. I hope they realize it and act accordingly.
Goodluck all Longs!
-vg_future
Alley, good analysis. Thanks.
-vg_future
I guess the action against NOK to collect ICC award is just procedural and is done to avoid any further delays in payments.
GoodLuck All longs!
-vg_future
I guess the action against NOK to collect ICC award is just procedural and is done to avoid any further delays in payments.
GoodLuck All longs!
-vg_future
Dave Davis, enjoy your day. My gut feeling is IDCC will do great.
-vg_future
Dave Davis, I thought you are on vacation. Now I know how vacations can be spoiled or rather sweetened (as in this case) for more enjoyment.
-vg_future
j70k, acceptable solution bcoz it removes the uncertainity.
-vg_future
j70K, since the shares are trading around 18 currently, the actual deal would be lesser than 300 mil in your numbers. Something like 5 x 42 = 210 mil ($60 - $18 = $42). I am not sure if that will be allowed or acceptable. Just commenting on the numbers.
GoodLuck All!
-vg_future
Question for resident legal/patent experts, from the latest Lucent filings :
Is Lucent saying that the patents are good, but they don't have enough technical knowledge to agree that they infringed on them (are they trying downplay/refuse willful infringement)?
or is this just typical legal language?
TIA.
-vg_future
MJPLIFE11, Thanks.
-vg_future
Was that a block of over 80K in the last second?
-vg_future
Xavier James, You are right. That's what I see in the Form 4. As per the 8-K filed
"Additionally, Mr. Bernstein has been awarded 20,000 stock options vesting over three years beginning in June 2005 and a signing bonus of $10,000."
also
"Mr. Bernstein will be eligible to receive a LTIP cash bonus and restricted stock unit award pursuant to the Company's Long-Term Compensation Program at an initial program target of 80% of his Base Salary"
This tells me that he might have been awarded 10,211 RSUs as per the second bolded statement and $10,000 as the sign on bonus.
Anybody, please correct me if I am wrong.
Probably, he is THE guy that IDCC has been looking and could be totally worth it.
-vg_future
OT: DaveDavis, Please add me to the list.
Thanks!
-vg_future
jyothi_vinod@yahoo.com
All, you have the right to remain silent, whatever you say could be and will be used (the way the things are going on now) against IDCC. I thought I would never say this because we all want and deserve an un-biased forum for our dd, but, still things are getting biased and in particular against IDCC.
GoodLuck All!
-vg_future
JimLur, I couldn't open the pdf. Anyway, does that mean that NOK is depending on this board to get comments made by IDCC execs during ASM? How silly can they get by quoting someone from an informal discussion during ASM. I guess NOK can stoop down to anylevel. IMO, arbitration is not going good to any extent for them.
-vg_future
loophole73, may I add Panasonic (JPO) to the events on the horizon. Thanks for all your insight.
-vg_future
ams13sag, I didn't say that award means money. I am only saying that it could be positive for IDCC. It seems logical to deduce that SE trigger is valid otherwise it wouldn't take an extra month to determine the trigger.
-vg_future
malko14, I hope the delay caused by NOK is not INTENTIONAL (though a part of me hopes it to be intentional so that ICC can fine them heavy). Any thoughts?
TIA
-vg_future
All, my 2cents on 2 possible scenarios
1. The numbers might be getting re-calculated due to so called updated sales figures from NOK. This tells me that IDCC is going to get monies definitelyu and ERICY, in fact, is a trigger. Most possible scenario. As per the 8K "it is estimated that a Final Award will be transmitted to the parties by June 30, 2005" and this IMO means that they will finalize the numbers (after re-calculations) and send them to the parties.
2. Parties might be in negotiations and kind of getting extra time before the numbers are finalized/received. But, I am not sure if this kind of information is/will be communicated to the share holders or not. This would smell like pre-ERICY settlement period.
Either way, IDCC is going to get monies.....but, as someone said, IDCC is not for faintest of hearts.
GoodLuck All!
-vg_future
habu, thanks for the message chain. Good work. EOM.
-vg_future
DaveDavis, Did you find anything interesting in the filings? Will be nteresting to see what's cooking there. TIA
-vg_future
malko, thanks. It sounds strange, though. EOM
-vg_future
malko14, wouldn't ICC inform the parties if something like this (the delay due to re-calculations or evaluations) has happened. I guess IDCC mentioned that they haven't heard anything regarding the arbitration from ICC. These 2 things are not fitting together. Please comment. TIA for your insight.
-vg_future
rmarchma, thanks for the explanation. So, let's await the update from IDCC and hope it happens soon.
-vg_future
rmarchma, yes that is the one. Thanks for the information. So, am I right in assuming that this might not be considered material enough unless it triggers Matsushita's payments?
TIA
-vg_future
Dave Davis, as per my3sons87 post 110897
After the meeting myself and one or two others went over this again. Merritt said, as I recall, the patents are 3G and issued in Japan. Panasonic produces most of their products there, and with the 3G patents issued they were in discussions. He also clarified for me that these are not te old 2G TDMA and GSM patents that were referred to the high court.
These patents are different then those that were involved (stuck) in the JPO appeal. I guess these too are material, but, may be not material enough unless they trigger or result in Panasonic payments. I guess these were referred in either 10K or 10Q.
IMHO.
-vg_future
Hardball, that's what I thought. Thanks!
-vg_future
Hardball, I agree to most of your analysis except for this
All the speculation about settlement negotiations which, as clarence points out, were denied to exist by NOK in a Court filing under penalties of perjury/false swearing!
This filing was from before there was a management change at IDCC. That is some 3 to 4 weeks before. Is there a latest filing that said no negotiations?
TIA
-vg_future
All, this means that Harry is given another year to prove himself and he will be up for election again. Am I right in assuming this?
-vg_future
I still can't reach IDCC's website. Guess, I have to wait.
-vg_future
Xavier James, what??
-vg_future
dws, thanks for the KOP update. EOM
-vg_future
KAJO7710, thanks for the update. EOM
-vg_future
SSALNER, good point. EOM
-vg_future
nieves, no doubt about that. Same here.
-vg_future
nieves, Thanks!. EOM
-vg_future
orientbull, I don't see it on IDCC's website. What is the summary of FORM 4?
TIA
-vg_future
wireless_wazoo, thanks. EOM
-vg_future
jiff, I don't see the trades that you mentioned at nasdaq.com. Could the trades that you referred to be one of those trades that are reported late (executed during regular hours, but reported late at average price for those purchases)?
-vg_future
Ghors & Olddog967, thanks for the clarification/info. EOM
-vg_future