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.
Chinese Trade Discussions - Conflicting Reports:
Much of this article is on the negative side, but the last
part is positive:
<<However, there are conflicting reports out of Chinese media on Tuesday. The state-run Global Times said the Chinese delegation is one of “the largest and broadest teams” in the history of U.S.-China trade talks, indicating Beijing is “sincerely looking to reach a comprehensive trade deal.”>>
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/china-tempers-optimism-for-a-trade-deal-ahead-of-talks.html
That's nonsense. Yes, the new FASB accounting standard (ASC 606)
has been in effect for almost two years.
But that doesn't mean that what would be considered revenue under
ASC 605 doesn't still go straight to the statement of cash flows.
Cash flow is king!
olddog967, thanks.
Maybe IDCC will hire some sales agents in China IF Trump can
put together a decent trade deal with China?
<<I am surprised IDCC apparently has not been using local "agents" in China to help obtain licenses, as they did to get established in Japan.>>
How do we know that they're not?
And if they are, how do we know that IDCC isn't being told to pound
sand (or whatever the saying is over in China) until your president (Trump)
comes to an agreement that doesn't force China to change their laws.
So, in my view, getting a grip on IP theft is one thing but fundamentally
trying to change another's society is a whole different ball game.
Haven't millions of people died throughout history for trying to do just that?
<<It appears telling investors that you cannot license 50% of the market, and the 50% you have licensed are fixed fee is not good for the stock price.>>
That's what creates a bargain.
I bought big into Qualcomm during the Apple litigation - lot's of
chances to buy in the 50's and even into the high 40's at certain
times.
QCOM is now 77.50 - that's a big deal for me.
If some think that IDCC's patents aren't worth licensing, then
it shouldn't be bought. But I think that the Chinese will have to
settle once the trade dispute gets worked out.
PS:
Any info on Apple and 5G licensing?
<< is it a pink OTC yet ? >>
Can you name any Pink Sheet stocks that have hundreds of millions
of net cash in the bank?
Thanks in advance!
<<For 20+ years, this board has said if this is settled or if this happens...only for us to be nowhere.>>
Nowhere?
Now that is a ridiculous comment.
How could someone who invested in IDCC 20 years ago (who bought and held)
be getting nowhere with a 12.0% CAGR not including the dividend?
In my view, a 12.0% + compounded return for 20 years isn't nowhere -it's fantastic!
The problem is that most people don't know how to buy and hold with
the right investments.
Footnote 12:
<<The only evidence the Court cited was an internal Qualcomm slide from 2009 suggesting that the company should develop a strategy to compete with MediaTek on 2G GSM chips (a non-relevant market), “destroy MTK’s 2G margin and profit” and “[t]ake away the $$$ that MTK can invest in 3G.” 6ER1262. That kind of “desire to extinguish one’s rivals” is a normal part of competition and does not create antitrust liability. A.A. Poultry Farms, 881 F.2d at 1402.>>
https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/opening-brief-for-appellant-qualcomm-incorporated.pdf[url][/url][tag]insert-text-here[/tag]
The key point is that it's a non-relevant market. And this is why that's important:
<<The court’s order governs Qualcomm’s practices not only for CDMA and
premium LTE devices (the markets at issue), but also for 5G and other devices (markets not examined at trial). As the court recognized, other SEP owners license their patents in a similar manner to Qualcomm. Op. 130-31. Thus, the order will influence the behavior of many participants in 5G and other markets, and impact competition and innovation therein. Yet the court fell far short of considering the consequences of its order, declining to hold a remedy hearing, and excluding evidence about 5G markets before entering a remedy designed to reshape competition in those markets. See, e.g., D.Ct. Dkt. 997.
Moreover, the court failed to justify the extraterritorial obligations on Qualcomm. It did not address whether Qualcomm’s allegedly unlawful licensing practices have already been addressed by other foreign competition enforcers that have resolved their claims against Qualcomm.5 The remedy’s lack of territorial limitations contravenes the federal enforcement agencies’ “general practice . . . to seek an effective remedy that is restricted to the United States,” unless a broader
remedy is necessary to cure the competitive harm to U.S. commerce and consumers.6>>
Page 14 of 33:
drive.google.com
So Lucy put a draconian remedy (that was never briefed or argued) on a "market not examined at trial" - to me that's unbelievably arrogant!
<<Further, even if Qualcomm were to prevail on its Aspen/Trinko argument, the absence of an antitrust duty to deal may not require a reversal on appeal. The theory of the case, again, is that Qualcomm structured its transactions in a manner that not only enabled it to evade its FRAND obligations, but also to use that evasion as a means for stifling nascent competition and artificially maintaining its monopoly power.>>
This shoots down that argument:
This should dispose of the FTC's case:
<<Moreover, even if Qualcomm’s “threats” could be characterized as a mechanism to evade the FRAND process, that is not an antitrust violation. As discussed, the D.C. Circuit has flatly rejected the argument that even a SEP owner’s deceptive attempt to avoid FRAND limits on license rates is anti-competitive. Rambus, 522 F.3d at 464-66. And in any event, the District Court simply assumed—without proof—that but for the supposed threats Qualcomm would have obtained lower licensing rates. The FTC presented no evidence and the Court made no findings that the outcome of any license negotiations between Qualcomm and an OEM would have been different but for what the Court characterizes as Qualcomm’s threats. This should dispose of the FTC’s case. Rambus, 522 F.3d at 46667 (FTC has the burden to prove “but for” outcome would have been different); see also supra Part II.B. In fact, the undisputed evidence showed that OEMs agreed to the very same rates whether or not they purchased Qualcomm chips and whether or not the license covered phones containing chips over which Qualcomm was alleged to have had market power. The record contains evidence of hundreds of Qualcomm licenses that could not be affected by “threats,” yet provided for indistinguishable royalty rates. >>
Page 115 of 176:
qualcomm.com
<<target price 80 bahahahahahahahahaahhaha it wont see 80 for 2 years>>
Hard to argue with that.
But if it takes two years, I don't have a problem with that.
In fact, this is the first time that I'm thinking about buying
some more is several years anyway.
I'm thinking that going from the high 40's to possibly 80 or so
in a couple of years could be a very good investment.
But even if I buy some more in the high 40's, we could still dump
down to even lower prices. So I'm stating the obvious with regard
to the hard part of investing. The real hard part is putting more
money to work at these levels and see it diminish until things get
better.
<<The patents asserted are:
•
European Patent (UK) 2 363 008 – Enables the efficient control of carrier aggregation in 4G (LTE). In advanced mobile phones, carrier aggregation is key to achieving high data rates.
•
European Patent (UK) 2 557 714 – Supports the use of multiple antennae transmissions in 4G (LTE). The patent enables the use of flexible levels of error protection for reporting by the handset, increasing the reliability of the signaling.
•
European Patent (UK) 2 485 558 – Allows mobile phone users quick and efficient access to 4G (LTE) networks. One of the main technological challenges of developing LTE networks was efficient bandwidth usage for various traffic types such as VoIP, FTP and HTTP. This patent relates to inventions for quickly and efficiently requesting shared uplink resources — for example, reducing lag when requesting a webpage on a smartphone on LTE networks.
•
European Patent (UK) 2 421 318 – Decreases latency during HSUPA transmission by eliminating certain scenarios in HSUPA where scheduling requests may be blocked. A blocked scheduling request may prevent a smartphone from sending data.
Subsequent to the action before the UK High Court of Justice, InterDigital filed a U.S. district court action in Delaware, where InterDigital’s headquarters are located and where the Lenovo defendants are incorporated.>>
http://www.snl.com/Cache/c399375009.html
Trump might have to get going sooner on a deal with Xi.
I think that a recession ruins his chances of reelection:
<<U.S. manufacturer growth slowed to the lowest in almost 10 years in August, the latest sign that the trade war may be exacerbating the economic slowdown.
The U.S. manufacturing PMI (purchasing managers index) was 49.9 in August, down from 50.4 in July and below the neutral 50.0 threshold for the first time since September 2009, according to IHS Markit.>>
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/manufacturing-sector-contracts-for-the-first-time-in-nearly-a-decade-according-to-ihs-markit.html
Don't forget what happened to HW Bush back in 1992:
<<Belated recovery from the 1990–1991 recession contributed to Bill Clinton's victory in the 1992 presidential election, during which Clinton was successful in attributing slow economic growth to incumbent president George H. W. Bush.>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession_in_the_United_States
I'm putting them in my "eventually" column.
Xiaomi reports strong sales for 1H19
Max Wang, Taipei; Steve Shen, DIGITIMES
Thursday 22 August 2019
Xiaomi has reported that its sales grew 20% on year to CNY95.7 billion (US$13.53 billion) in the first half of 2019, with overseas handset revenues accounting for 40% of total sales.
Handset revenues reached CNY59 billion in the first half, Xiaomi said, adding that its handset shipments reached 32.1 million units in the second quarter generating revenues of CNY32 billion.
The robust sales in the second quarter indicated that Xiaomi's handset business was not affected by off-peak season effect in the quarter, with its handset ASPs rising, according to market watchers.
Gross margin improved to 8.1% in the second quarter from 3.3% a quarter earlier, driven by increased shipments of handsets priced over CNY2,000, whose proportion to overall sales has reached 32%, the company said.
To tackle competition of fellow companies including Huawei and Oppo, Xiaomi has launched a CC-series lineup targeting female users and enriched the portfolios of its Redmi lineup by introducing high-end models with 64-megapixel main cameras.
Xiaomi also plans to launch its second 5G-enabled phone in the second half of 2019, having begun marketing its first 5G model in overseas markets including Europe.
Xiaomi also noted that sales of its AIoT devices totaled CNY27 billion in the first half, with shipments including 5.4 million smart TVs and over one million air conditioners.
What the FTC and Judge Koh did to Qualcomm won't stand on appeal.
Here's a couple of reasons why but there's many more in the brief:
<<The court’s order governs Qualcomm’s practices not only for CDMA and
premium LTE devices (the markets at issue), but also for 5G and other devices (markets not examined at trial). As the court recognized, other SEP owners license their patents in a similar manner to Qualcomm. Op. 130-31. Thus, the order will influence the behavior of many participants in 5G and other markets, and impact competition and innovation therein. Yet the court fell far short of considering the consequences of its order, declining to hold a remedy hearing, and excluding evidence about 5G markets before entering a remedy designed to reshape competition in those markets. See, e.g., D.Ct. Dkt. 997.
Moreover, the court failed to justify the extraterritorial obligations on Qualcomm. It did not address whether Qualcomm’s allegedly unlawful licensing practices have already been addressed by other foreign competition enforcers that have resolved their claims against Qualcomm.5 The remedy’s lack of territorial limitations contravenes the federal enforcement agencies’ “general practice . . . to seek an effective remedy that is restricted to the United States,”
unless a broader remedy is necessary to cure the competitive harm to U.S. commerce and consumers.6>>
Page 14 of 33:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VJobscIdAwk5MwePSYeT6Hl51jm1m0sy/view
So Lucy Koh put a draconian remedy (that was never briefed or argued) on a "market not examined at trial" - to me that's unbelievably arrogant!
Yes, but Qualcomm is also having a problem with Huawei.
And similar to IDCC's Merritt, Qualcomm's Mollenkopf is also
somewhat optimistic about finally signing a deal with Huawei.
It's just a matter of time.
But we're just not sure how much time.
<<BIG QUESTION WILL THE CHINESE WAIT HIM OUT TILL ELECTION ?>>
Good question.
Is Trump smart enough politically to see that his reelection could
hinge on what President Xi decides to do?
Xi doesn't have to sign anything he doesn't want to within the next
14 months. Foreign frustration (whether it's China or Russia, etc.)
has a higher threshold for pain than the USA. The US typically wants
it now -the Chinese are very strategic.
If I were Trump, I would become Xi's buddy - at least enough of a
buddy to sign a win win agreement and NOT try to change Chinese laws!
Unlike many, he puts his money where his mouth is.
And that takes some character:
GE CEO Larry Culp bought nearly $2 million worth of the company’s stock after fraud accusation
PUBLISHED AN HOUR AGOUPDATED 13 MIN AGO
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/15/ge-ceo-larry-culp-bought-companys-stock-after-fraud-accusation.html
Trump's recent comments on trade - this was earlier today:
<<Trump said he did not think Beijing would retaliate for the U.S. tariffs.
U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators are set to meet next month in Washington, though a specific date has not been announced.
"September, the meeting is still on as I understand it, but I think more importantly than September, we're talking by phone, and we're having very productive talks," Trump said.>>
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-trade-war-china-215145093.html
In my view, regardless of what IDCC says, getting a trade deal done
is important to licensing Huawei, Xiaomi, etc.
<< If our CEO is unable to handle a resolution, it is past time for a replacement.>>
So Merritt should solve the entire trade dispute problem in one foul
swoop? Is he a superhero??
It's a simple fact - IDCC is being held hostage to the trade dispute.
I don't expect a resolution until the Trump administration can get
this resolved with a win-win agreement. And it's paramount to his
reelection campaign.
We can all pontificate until we're out of breath or until our fingers
get tired from the keyboard - but IDCC is trapped.
But when this turns, this stock can do very well because the share
count will be even lower and the earnings will be higher - it could be
explosive!
<<All this said, will be interesting to see how the China thing plays out. With what's going on in Hong Kong I think there will be additional pressure against striking deal with China.>>
Trump needs a deal with China if he wants to get reelected.
I imagine that will mean a mutual respect for each other's patents,
but it can not include the USA telling China what to do with their
own domestic laws and how to run their society.
<<I listened to the cc. They sound optimistic that the future is bright.>>
zdog, I agree.
They keep on buying back lots of stock - 2.5 million shares in the first
half of this year.
If they can sign those Chinese companies within the next year or so,
this stock can do very well with the lower float and growing earnings.
<<It looks like they repurchased $62.283 million worth of stock
last quarter.>>
It looks like $20 million of that had to do with the bond offering.
The bottom line is that 2.5 million shares have been repurchased in the
first half of 2019
Even though there's a lot of difficulty with Chinese trade, IDCC's
Kai Öistämö told us today that, believe it or not, the Chinese
licensing discussions are going reasonably well - check 10 minutes
here:
https://78449.choruscall.com/dataconf/productusers/idcc/mediaframe/31585/indexr.html
It looks like they repurchased $62.283 million worth of stock
last quarter.
Yeah - buy at 6 cents so you can sell at the ask of 4 cents, which
is 33% lower.
What a joke!
How about those poor people who bought at 75 cents in the private
offerings three years ago?!
Sony partnership includes 5G:
<<December 24, 2018 08:30 ET | Source: InterDigital, Inc.
WILMINGTON, Del. , Dec. 24, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), a mobile technology research and development company, today announced the expansion and extension of the business partnerships that exist between the company and Sony Corporation of America. The company also announced that this agreement includes a patent license from InterDigital.
The companies agreed to extend the term of the Convida Wireless joint venture, launched in 2013, and sharpen its focus on 5G, including IoT and infrastructure research. The move aligns with the enormous market excitement around the finalization of the first release of the 5G standard in 2018 and various announced product and service launches since. The new agreement also sees Sony invest in Chordant®, InterDigital’s IoT platform business.
Convida Wireless was launched in 2013 as a joint venture to combine Sony's consumer electronics expertise with InterDigital's pioneering IoT expertise to drive new research in IoT communications and other connectivity areas. The companies expanded Convida’s scope to include 5G in 2015.
“Sony Corporation of America has been a great partner and licensee, and we’re pleased to see the expansion of our business relationship to now include involvement in our Chordant business. Our partnership with Sony is a tremendous model of how we can work with licensees around the world to understand their needs, build research offerings that align with them, and bring those offerings together in a way that provides value to both parties. We’re also excited at the sharpened focus of Convida Wireless on 5G, a technology that has seen a tremendous amount of excitement and that we think will be transformative to our industry,” said William J. Merritt, President and CEO of InterDigital.>>
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/12/24/1678124/0/en/InterDigital-Extends-Term-of-Joint-Venture-and-Enters-Into-Patent-License-Agreement-With-Sony-Corporation-of-America.html
LG is 5G - this is from 2018's 10-K:
<<In 2017, we entered into a multi-year, worldwide, non-exclusive patent license agreement with LG (the “LG PLA”), a global leader and technology innovator in consumer electronics, mobile communications and home appliances. The LG PLA covers the 3G, 4G and 5G terminal unit products of LG and its affiliates and sets forth a royalty of cash payments to InterDigital as well as a process for the transfer of patents from LG to InterDigital. The deal also committed the parties to explore cooperation for projects related to the research and development of video and sensor technology for connected and autonomous vehicles. During 2018, we recognized a total of $31.8 million of revenue associated with the LG PLA under ASC 606.>>
<< The agreement sets forth terms covering the sale by Apple of its products and services, including, but not limited to, its 3G, 4G and future generation cellular and wireless-enabled products.>>
So no 5G for Apple, at least not yet.
I'm hoping that it was just to early for Apple to sign onto 5G
in late 2017.
Surprised that there was no commentary on this:
Was Apple "using" InterDigital and others? This is disturbing information that came out in the recent Apple / Qualcomm trial just before the settlement:
<<The purpose was spelled out clearly: “Goal: Reduce Apple’s net royalty to Qualcomm.” Apple said in the document it planned to accomplish this in several ways, including “Hurt Qualcomm financially” and “Put Qualcomm’s licensing model at risk.”
In the lawsuit Apple filed in 2017, it alleged that the chipmaker and wireless pioneer had a stranglehold on the market for wireless modem chips. Apple contends that Qualcomm leveraged its position to overcharge for its patent licenses.
On Tuesday, Apple lawyer Ruffin Cordell used comparatively inexpensive patent licenses Apple had signed with companies like Ericsson and Huawei to show how Qualcomm was price gouging. In court, Cordell said a group of those patents was twice the size of Qualcomm’s but had cost Apple a fraction of the cost. “Does that make any sense? Is that fair and reasonable?” he asked the jury.
There was more to the story, though. In one internal document cited by Qualcomm’s lawyers, Apple said it sought to “create evidence” by scrupulously licensing other less expensive patents in order to make Qualcomm’s look expensive. According to the documents, Apple said it would “selectively filter” a group of patent licenses for “the most desirable deals,” using the patents as “evidence as a comparable in disputes with others." Qualcomm lawyer Evan Chesler alleged the “others” referred to Qualcomm. Apple declined to comment on the documents and allegation.
“So they went out to these other companies and they negotiated very cheap deals within the last couple of years to create the evidence to come in here and tell you that those guys are the good guys because they are getting less for their patents and we are the bad guys,” Chesler argued to the jury.>>
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32121177
Apple said that Qualcomm's technology is the best - this came out
at trial.
That's one reason Apple settled with QCOM at rates much higher
than InterDigital's.
Lucy Koh was wrong on the law and this explains it pretty well:
A Court’s Dangerous Antitrust Overreach
Christine Wilson
Silicon Valley brought us a startling new creation last week. It did not come from the research-and-development wing of a tech giant or defense contractor. Rather, it emerged from the San Jose, Calif., chambers of a federal district judge.
In a sweeping opinion, the judge concluded that a California chip maker, Qualcomm , violated U.S. antitrust law by unlawfully monopolizing the market for certain wireless telecommunications chips. She therefore agreed with an antitrust complaint filed by a divided and depleted Federal Trade Commission in the waning days of the Obama administration.
As one of the five commissioners who have since taken the helm of that agency, you might presume I am pleased with this decision. I am impressed by the persuasiveness of our legal team, which dutifully litigated the case my predecessors handed it. But I am dismayed that the judge took this opportunity to create new legal obligations, undermine intellectual-property rights, and expand the application of our antitrust laws beyond U.S. borders.
Qualcomm has announced that it will appeal the decision. Speaking for myself, and not for the FTC or any other commissioner, I encourage higher courts to reconsider the wisdom of the judge’s conclusions. In the interim, I write to make clear to businesses, fellow antitrust enforcers abroad, and law students my opinion that this ruling is both bad law and bad policy.
Two judicial innovations are particularly alarming. First, the judge radically expanded a company’s legal obligation to help its competitors by reviving and extending a discredited Supreme Court case called Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing (1985). Consumers benefit when rivals compete. But in Aspen Skiing, the justices decided that antitrust law may require a company to aid a competitor if it unilaterally terminates a pre-existing, voluntary and profitable course of dealing to acquire or maintain monopoly power. Even within these narrow parameters, courts have long disfavored this “duty to deal,” and the Supreme Court has since said it is “at or near the outer boundary” of U.S. antitrust law.
Here, the judge concluded that Qualcomm had a duty to license its intellectual property to chip-making rivals, even though Qualcomm did not have a pre-existing, voluntary and profitable course of dealing with them. So she expanded the scope of Aspen Skiing. Peering into the distant past, she found that in 1999 Qualcomm said it was licensing some patents to some chip makers. Although it has long since stopped, and presumably those patents have long since expired, she reasoned that “Qualcomm itself has licensed its [patents] to rival” chip makers, and therefore had a duty under Aspen Skiing to “continue” doing so.
Never mind that the judge’s reference point involved licensing different patents, to different competitors, in a different century. By this logic, Aspen Skiing now means that if a company ever sells any product to any competitor, it then could have a perpetual antitrust obligation to sell every product to every competitor. That’s light years beyond the “outer boundary” of antitrust law.
Judicial alchemy also converted a contractual obligation into an antitrust one. Specifically, the judge found that Qualcomm’s promise to license its standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms created a contractual obligation to license rival chip makers. But the judge also ruled that breaching this contractual obligation was an antitrust violation, which permits more intrusive remedies.
Second, and speaking of remedies, the judge’s order appears to require Qualcomm to negotiate or renegotiate contracts with customers and competitors world-wide. That is a significant departure from current practice. In 2017, the Justice Department and the FTC explained that their “general practice is to seek an effective remedy that is restricted to the United States” and that they seek to “tailor” a remedy “to address the identified competitive harm to U.S. commerce and consumers without unnecessarily conflicting with the laws, policies, or remedies of foreign jurisdictions.”
Perhaps in Washington, but apparently not in San Jose. The judge’s order contains no territorial limitations. Nor did she assess whether her remedy would conflict with the laws, policies or remedies of foreign jurisdictions. At least on its face, her order requires Qualcomm to license foreign companies for chips made abroad, assembled into phones abroad, and sold to consumers living abroad.
Moreover, she crafted this remedy by herself, despite an official Justice Department request for additional briefing and a statement from the FTC litigating staff that it “supports and is prepared to provide further briefing and argument on remedy.”
What should the business community now expect? Given that the decision is far outside the mainstream, it seems unlikely to trigger a new wave of enforcement actions. But unless it is overturned, it invites the plaintiffs’ bar to file private antitrust suits against companies that decline to share their secret sauce—whether it’s a patent, an algorithm or an actual sauce recipe—with competitors. Faced with this potential onslaught, a company understandably might question the value of investing in new assets and technologies. It also might question whether breaching a private contract—for any reason—will expose it to an antitrust suit and treble damages.
And that may be just the tip of the iceberg. Unless higher courts quickly fix the decision, expect foreign governments to adopt these novel theories with gusto. Foreign competitors will no longer have to steal American technology; henceforth, they can simply cite this decision for the proposition that U.S. innovators must share it. The expropriation of American technology will continue, but now under the auspices of U.S. law.
Thankfully, serious damage can yet be avoided. Qualcomm’s appeal will allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and potentially the Supreme Court, to assess the wisdom of these sweeping changes. In the meantime, Qualcomm has an excellent case for staying the judge’s ruling, thereby ensuring that Silicon Valley’s latest innovation does not become an immediate boon to foreign firms that use American technology to sell foreign phones to foreign consumers.
Ms. Wilson is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32173283&srchtxt=overreach
AltEng, it's good to see that you're bringing this board back
to reality.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
<<Could Qualcomm buy us out and license our IP under the Apple Agreement? To Apple & to others at the rates that Apple is paying?>>
I highly doubt it. And here's one of the reasons why below.
The caveat that I'd like to make before the passage below is that
I always thought that Qualcomm was much stronger than InterDigital.
I do own both stocks, but I have more Qualcomm than IDCC.
With that being said, QCOM has a market cap of just over $100 billion
and IDCC's is just over $2 billion. My hope is that QCOM isn't 50X
stronger than IDCC - 25X or somewhat better better would suit me
just fine! And that assumes that QCOM stays above $100 billion.
Was Apple "using" InterDigital and others? This is disturbing information that came out in the recent Apple / Qualcomm trial just before the settlement:
<<The purpose was spelled out clearly: “Goal: Reduce Apple’s net royalty to Qualcomm.” Apple said in the document it planned to accomplish this in several ways, including “Hurt Qualcomm financially” and “Put Qualcomm’s licensing model at risk.”
In the lawsuit Apple filed in 2017, it alleged that the chipmaker and wireless pioneer had a stranglehold on the market for wireless modem chips. Apple contends that Qualcomm leveraged its position to overcharge for its patent licenses.
On Tuesday, Apple lawyer Ruffin Cordell used comparatively inexpensive patent licenses Apple had signed with companies like Ericsson and Huawei to show how Qualcomm was price gouging. In court, Cordell said a group of those patents was twice the size of Qualcomm’s but had cost Apple a fraction of the cost. “Does that make any sense? Is that fair and reasonable?” he asked the jury.
There was more to the story, though. In one internal document cited by Qualcomm’s lawyers, Apple said it sought to “create evidence” by scrupulously licensing other less expensive patents in order to make Qualcomm’s look expensive. According to the documents, Apple said it would “selectively filter” a group of patent licenses for “the most desirable deals,” using the patents as “evidence as a comparable in disputes with others." Qualcomm lawyer Evan Chesler alleged the “others” referred to Qualcomm. Apple declined to comment on the documents and allegation.
“So they went out to these other companies and they negotiated very cheap deals within the last couple of years to create the evidence to come in here and tell you that those guys are the good guys because they are getting less for their patents and we are the bad guys,” Chesler argued to the jury.>>
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32121177
<<From January 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019, the company repurchased 1.6 million shares of common stock under its stock repurchase program for a total cost of $109.0 million. Additionally, from April 1, 2019 through April 30, 2019, we repurchased an additional 0.3 million shares for a total cost of $21.7 million. $37.4 million remains available for repurchase subject to the increase to the buyback authorization in December 2018.>>
http://ir.interdigital.com/file/Index?KeyFile=397771314
Was Apple "using" InterDigital and others? This is disturbing information that came out in the recent Apple / Qualcomm trial just before the settlement:
<<The purpose was spelled out clearly: “Goal: Reduce Apple’s net royalty to Qualcomm.” Apple said in the document it planned to accomplish this in several ways, including “Hurt Qualcomm financially” and “Put Qualcomm’s licensing model at risk.”
In the lawsuit Apple filed in 2017, it alleged that the chipmaker and wireless pioneer had a stranglehold on the market for wireless modem chips. Apple contends that Qualcomm leveraged its position to overcharge for its patent licenses.
On Tuesday, Apple lawyer Ruffin Cordell used comparatively inexpensive patent licenses Apple had signed with companies like Ericsson and Huawei to show how Qualcomm was price gouging. In court, Cordell said a group of those patents was twice the size of Qualcomm’s but had cost Apple a fraction of the cost. “Does that make any sense? Is that fair and reasonable?” he asked the jury.
There was more to the story, though. In one internal document cited by Qualcomm’s lawyers, Apple said it sought to “create evidence” by scrupulously licensing other less expensive patents in order to make Qualcomm’s look expensive. According to the documents, Apple said it would “selectively filter” a group of patent licenses for “the most desirable deals,” using the patents as “evidence as a comparable in disputes with others." Qualcomm lawyer Evan Chesler alleged the “others” referred to Qualcomm. Apple declined to comment on the documents and allegation.
“So they went out to these other companies and they negotiated very cheap deals within the last couple of years to create the evidence to come in here and tell you that those guys are the good guys because they are getting less for their patents and we are the bad guys,” Chesler argued to the jury.>>
https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32121177
Yes - .9 million shares last quarter.
And another .9 million shares repurchased so far this year.
Innovation Alliance Statement on U.S. Ranking in Global Index of Patent System Strength
Improvement in U.S. Chamber of Commerce International IP Index Reflects Progress Under New USPTO Leadership, But Judicial, Regulatory and Legislative Action Still Needed to Further Strengthen Patent Rights
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Innovation Alliance Executive Director Brian Pomper today issued the following statement in response to the release of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center’s 2019 International IP Index:
“The Innovation Alliance is pleased to see the improvement in the U.S. standing in the Chamber of Commerce’s global ranking of patent system strength. The change in our ranking from 12th place in 2018 to 2nd place in 2019 reflects the important progress being made at the U.S. Patent Office under the leadership of Director Andrei Iancu. However, judicial, regulatory and legislative action is still needed to further strengthen U.S. patent rights.
“Since he assumed office last year, Director Iancu has been focused on using his administrative powers to improve the predictability and reliability of the U.S. patent system. For example, to help address the confusion over Section 101 and what can and cannot be patented, the USPTO has issued new guidance to clarify the law for inventors. And to help restore balance to the agency’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) process, the USPTO has finalized a rule requiring the PTAB to use the same standard for considering patent claims as is used in federal courts, to prevent inconsistent results when the same patent is reviewed in different forums. Most importantly, Director Iancu has used his position to champion the brilliance of American inventors and the critical role our patent system plays in promoting their innovation.
“Despite the improvement in the U.S. ranking, we must not become complacent and assume that all is well in the U.S. patent system. Recent court decisions and legislation have weakened patent rights and undermined our nation’s innovation ecosystem. As a result, U.S. startup activity has slumped and venture capital investment has increasingly moved overseas.
“The U.S. can reassert its position as an international leader in innovation with smart fixes like the bipartisan STRONGER Patents Act, which would strengthen patent rights for all inventors. We must continue the progress that has been made and work to ensure our patent system continues to serve as an engine for U.S. innovation and job creation.”
https://innovationalliance.net/from-the-alliance/innovation-alliance-statement-on-u-s-ranking-in-global-index-of-patent-system-strength/
Who is Leading the 5G Patent Race?
https://www.iam-media.com/who-leading-5g-patent-race
jeffree, thanks.
Do we know what IDCC received for this?
<<InterDigital has had previous success with standalone commercial initiatives. XCellAir, the company’s Wi-Fi and small cell management initiative, was spun out in 2015, and was successfully acquired by Spanish Wi-Fi service provider Fon in April 2018.>>
olddog967, this (from the article that you posted) looks like a fairer change:
<<Under the final rule, when construing a claim term in an IPR, PGR, or CBM, the PTAB will now also take into consideration any prior claim construction determination that has been made in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission, if that prior claim construction is timely made of record in that IPR, PGR, or CBM. As strange as it may sound, this is also a departure from current practice. Currently, the PTAB does not need to consider any prior claim construction. With different standards, the argument goes, what a different tribunal may have ruled would not necessarily be of any concern to the PTAB. This has lead to inconsistent rulings, and claims that have been finally adjudicated as valid by the Federal Circuit because the challenge emanated from the ITC and then when the same claims were challenged on the same prior art they were finally adjudicated as invalid by the Federal Circuit. See Are all Claims Invalid?>>