Loving life
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.
Jimmy .. Perfect! .. Others on the board might check to see if their brokers use Acquire and do the same. Welcome to the downside of the Information Age.
MO,
Danny
jimmylee .. It isn't just Schwab that Acquire Media supplies financial info to. Check out the Acquire website: testimonials from Dow Jones, Briefing.com, etc.
There is very little Schwab can do about this as the responsibility for maintaining and validating data rests solely with Acquire. Schwab pays Acquire for this so that they don't have the prohibitive costs of doing it themselves. Those who desire to send an e-mail on this I think would be better served sending it to Acquire with a copy to Schwab.
MO,
Danny
M3S .. Unfortunately, Jim's ego and sense of entitlement re: the importance of this board to IDCC, sometimes gets in the way of what is important to the investors on this board. Can anyone here say that they have never been guilty of a similar attitude in a different situation? I know I can't.
MO,
Danny
triangle .. You just answered it honestly and for that you should be commended.
MO,
Danny
triangle .. I'm also a shareholder since the middle 90's and have been very, very, very, patient with the management of this company.(they have made some decisions that were miserable)
Serious question, not a challenge to your views .. how would you rate the current management team versus your management evaluation criteria?
Danny
dmiller .. Even though you put LOL at the end of your question I will respond to it as if it were serious. Not unlike every market, the stock market has many segments. I was referring to the institutional segment that is now clearly in control with respect to IDCC's stock price going forward. Having said that, the individual investor segment of the IDCC market .. particularly the trader sub-segment thereof .. that no longer exerts the influence it once did on stock price movement is significantly influenced by comments on this board, not the least of which are rmarchma's.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. Me, too. Everything looks great and if he concurs we definitely are off to the races. If he doesn't, then we need to watch carefully whether short-term reactions by the Street are eventually confirmed confirmed in the long term or adjust to Ronny's view. Just trying to make sure that everyone understands what opinions move the market and which ones don't.
MO,
Danny
dclarke .. I like the way you think LOL.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. With no disrespect to rmarchma intended, the important review (in terms of share price movement) for us to focus on is that of the analysts/WS tomorrow both in the market and CC. Their review moves markets, ours don't.
Mo,
Danny
Sail .. Let me guess .. you are a "buy and hold" type LOL.
Danny
dclarke .. Good on ya!
CONGRATS EVERYONE .. IDCC's visibility has just been raised on WS but, more importantly, with customers and competitors. You ain't seen nothing yet!
MO,
Danny
revlis .. From the NASDAQ site:
Investors may trade in the Pre-Market (8:00-9:30 a.m. ET) and the After Hours Market (4:00-6:30 p.m. ET).
Participation from Market Makers and ECNs is strictly voluntary and as a result, these sessions may offer less liquidity and inferior prices. Stock prices may also move more quickly in this environment.
Investors who anticipate trading during these times are strongly advised to use limit orders.
LC .. Only traders, LC. It seems to me that most of the pizzing matches result from the "buy and holders" on this board and the "traders" having absolutely NOTHING in common when it comes to investing. Doesn't make one group right and the other wrong, but having both groups coexist on the same board is a pizzing match waiting to happen 24/7. Ranks right up there with discussing politics and religion when it comes to the likelihood of a civil discussion ever taking place.
Sure wish everyone would identify in their profiles whether they are primarily buy and holders or primarily traders. That way everyone has a chance to avoid engaging in worthless, frustrating discussions about IDCC with others who don't share the same investing DNA.
MO,
Danny
Loop .. Many of you are making statements about management deficiency because it has not been accomplished. You are simply wrong.
Couldn't agree more:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39489962
MO,
Danny
OT (I guess) .. Stinvestor. IMO, there were two primary business models that were in play at the outset of the Internet:
1. Pricing relative to the value added of a given domain and the various types of unique types of access within that domain and, 2. Free (or virtually so) access to all information on the internet. This model required that ad revenues and/or minuscule membership fees foot the bill and produce a profit.
Unfortunately IMO, but not surprisingly, the second business model was chosen given that "cost savings" is always easier to sell than "value-added." Sure seemed to make imminent sense at the beginning and it was profitable.
But now it appears to be the supreme example of "there is no free lunch." Everyone hated the ads mucking up their search for information and either ignored them or resorted to ever more sophisticated blockers of ads and spam. Advertisers began to realize that "hits" did not correlate with sales and either dropped their ads or demanded lower pricing. So domains added more and more value at considerable cost trying to get more hits and all of that added value was free as well.
As bad as that became for the dot.com folks, the trivializing of creative value of all types has become horrific and endemic over time and very much under the radar until recently. Now the die is cast and it is all but impossible to go back to a value added model. Billions of dollars related to the value-added components of GNP that heretofore have been willingly and justifiably paid for have been sucked away by the internet and are unlikely to ever return.
America was built and achieved its prominent position in the world based on the hard work, ambition and creativity/brain power of its citizens .. a three legged stool if you will. It appears that one of the legs is in danger of breaking and as we all know, two legged stools have difficulty staying upright.
MO,
Danny
lando1 .. Please see my latest response to Mickey. This situation has all the markings of .. dare I say it .. THE watershed event for IDCC .. and that is what will become the tie breaker re: settling with NOK on their "final offer" or deciding to continue on. I believe IDCC's holds all the cards right now with NOK, but is faced with a tough decision as to which approach will increase shareholder value the most in the LONG run (clearly a settlement is the best in the short run).
MO,
Danny
Mickey .. The case may or may not be as uncomplicated as you think. What I was really trying to say that the underlying business problem and challenge for IDCC management is indeed multi-faceted and complex as well as having far-reaching effects beyond the license involved or the case would be resolved by now.
MO,
Danny
Mickey .. I did not call you a dummy. In fact I didn't call you anything. I said that you oversimplify like other overly positive posters AS WELL AS those with an overly negative view.
Now,
Do I agree with you that I think that IDCC is highly likely to prevail over NOK? You betcha!!
However,
Has the case settled? Answer: No.
Has the ITC ruled against NOK. Answer: No.
Is it in the best PERSONAL interests of IDCC management to have this resolved? Answer: I can't imagine otherwise.
Has the legal battle raged on for a very long time. Answer: A resounding YES.
If it was as simple as you make it out to be, it would have been resolved a very long time ago. Since that hasn't happened my opinion/conclusion is that there are significant complexities involved of which none of us are aware.
MO,
Danny
JD Gator .. Bottom line is it ain't as simple as Mickey wants to believe.
It is almost never as simple as the overly optimistic and the overly pessimistic make it out to be. Not even close. That is why management makes the big bucks and why simplistic opinions based on "tip of the iceberg" observations lead many investors to conclude management has done little or nothing to deserve such compensation.
MO,
Danny
m3s .. I'm sure the IDCC jury consultant would find some clever way to sneak you on .. that is if the NOK lawyers are comatose at some point LOL.
MO,
Danny
last .. I think it is important to remember that it is highly likely that the "jury pool" for a NOK trial will be significantly more sophisticated about technology than the jurors in the MOT trial .. who didn't know the difference between a land line and a cell phone. I would imagine that every potential juror for a NOK trial has had a cell phone for many years and has been computer literate at least in terms of the Internet for a similar amount of time. I dare say that IDCC could successfully challenge the placement on the jury of any potential juror who doesn't have at least this level of understanding/appreciation of wireless technology and the future thereof.
MO,
Danny
revlis .. Can't believe anyone could bring a new insight to this 24/7 battle between the "always positive" and the "always negative" posters but you have done it!
I don't recall many, if any, positive posts that proclaim to be "balanced." However, there are few, if any, negative posts that don't contain some verbiage that self describes the post as balanced. Methinks the negative posters doth protest too much that they are the sole occupants of the "balanced" high ground. Now why is that? Hmmmmm.
MO,
Danny
Bulldzr .. That post by Nicmar says it all in terms of his credibility to comment in ANY way about IDCC management or any management for that matter. How clueless can anyone be about how businesses operate to make a profit and what does or doesn't constitutes a "scam"? My 4 year old Grandson has a better understanding of business.
Hope you had a well deserved great Father's day.
MO,
Danny
dndodd .. Sure wish he would post over here again, but he understands all to well that he would become a prime target of the wolf pack in the "unsilent i-hub open casino." He is an incredible resource of facts and opinions for long term shareholders and particularly perceptive of the ever decreasing value of this forum and the reasons why.
MO,
Danny
+1,000
Data .. You couldn't be more right about your opinion/fact re: the carrier. Even a genius like Jobs can screw-up on the simplest things, like when he decided Apple was a hardware company rather than a software company. There would have been no Windows and Bill Gates without that slip-up of monumental proportions.
MO,
Danny
dmiller .. Could you please provide some statistical data to back up your claim that "institutions usually vote with what management wants with this stuff?" They didn't do that with IDCC three years ago. Shareholders (Institutional and individual) just rubber stamping what management wants has been a thing of the past for some time.
Of course, you chose to leave out of your comment, as you frequently do, the part of your post that I was referring to when I stated "In spite of what Dmiller implies that he does his homework and the institutions don't, that simply isn't the case":
Institutions tend to vote with mgt unless they are aware of the problems that we are aware of.
Nice try back at you :>))
MO,
Danny
Jim (and all) .. Well, I'm batting 1,000 when it comes to predicting Institutional voting re: IDCC stock incentive plans .. as in 1,000 percent wrong! I was all but certain that the institutions would vote FOR the very controversial proposal for more options three (?) years ago when this board said no way. This board was right. This time I was just as certain that the institutions would vote it down as almost everyone here indicated they did. This time the board was wrong as was I.
Good time to be wrong folks. In spite of what Dmiller implies that he does his homework and the institutions don't, that simply isn't the case. They clearly gave IDCC management a vote of confidence today.
For a long time we have lamented that the institutions and WS did not see the positives we saw in IDCC. Now apparently they don't see the negatives re: IDCC management some here see. I much prefer the latter to the former. Time will tell who is right on this one.
MO,
Danny
micktoo164 .. You can get after hours and pre-market at this site (free). Just click on it or copy into your browser and then bookmark.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/ExtendedTradingTrades.aspx?mode=&kind=&timeframe=&intraday=&charttype=&splits=&earnings=&movingaverage=&lowerstudy=&comparison=&index=&symbol=IDCC&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&FormType=&mkttype=PRE&pathname=&prevPage=quick&page=premarket&selected=IDCC
Danny
amrwonderful .. I think most, if not all of us, are well aware of the potential negatives of this stock, especially in regard to NOK.
You nailed it!! Anyone that has been in this stock as long as most of us have could recite the negatives in our sleep. The reason we are STILL holding is that we continue to believe that the positives, both realized and potential, significantly outweigh the negatives.
Can nicmar, dmiller and the other fudmeisters recite the positives in their sleep or even when wide awake (if indeed such a state exists for them)? If they can't, they don't have the necessary balanced perspective on IDCC to provide anything of worth on this board as Jimlur has so accurately and forcefully proclaimed.
Good on ya,
Danny
Nicmar .. And what if the sky does fall, Chicken Little?
MO,
Danny
Magilla .. Good ones LOL
I'll punt and say that both of those come under the "They do" category.
Danny
Magilla .. Anyone think they will show the slide with the 'notorious' projected rate chart?
They do .. 90%
They don't but explain why not .. 9%
They don't with no explanation .. 1%
MO,
Danny
Jimlur .. Well said .. all they do is to provide those who would denigrate your long time tireless efforts for IDCC longs with fuel for the fire. I'm glad you finally and deservedly stood up for yourself.
MO,
Danny
dmiller .. I am 99.9% certain that the Count is right about the institutions voting down the plan, probably to a greater extent than they did the last one. Do you really think their .. the newer institutions .. DD is so superficial that they would not take a close look at the past before acquiring a new position? Do you really believe that our DD has uncovered significantly more and important "problems" than they have? You and nicmar crack me up with your supposed unique and perfect knowledge of all things IDCC past and present. ROFLMAO.
MO,
Danny
bulldzr .. I also find it ironic that the SEC seems to be spending their resources and time playing with these "small potatoes" type of investigations, while Madoff and Wall Street Banker's schemes have cost us $Billions....
That is pretty much SOP with the SEC .. go after the "small potatoes" as a means to get the big guys. First of all, it is easier to get the goods on a low-level operative in a bigger scheme. Second, they are far more easily scared into a plea bargain in return for incriminating evidence on the next level up and then that level is pressured to flip and so on. Third, even if they aren't able to get to the higher ups, it sends a strong signal that they may be next. The classical example of this approach is insider trading investigations.
So, you are right that being charged by the SEC and being guilty as charged are two different things. With low level types they throw the book at them with charges in hopes of scaring them into cooperating and to let the big guys know they are on to them.
The signs re: Madoff were plentiful and there for several years. The fact that the SEC ignored them is unconscionable!
If you want to understand the recent WS banker schemes and how they all came apart I suggest you read "House of Cards." It is riveting and .. even more amazing .. it explains some very complex issues in a way any layman can understand. Several years ago I posted that derivatives .. equities and bonds .. were going to bring the entire system down. Compared to understanding the complexities and interrelationships of valuing derivatives, the tax code is a piece of cake.
Have a GREAT Memorial Day weekend.
MO,
Danny
dmiller .. Eveything is a freakin secret with these guy's.
Considering that you, nicmar, and your other other FUD buddies consistently go over the top to make a negative out of every little thing they do make public, it is the ultimate testimonial to their superior management expertise.
MO,
Danny
Sammdogg .. You constanly babble and spin. Do you not have a conscience?
My vote for rhetorical question of the year!
Mo,
Danny
Jim .. We both know that Teecee brings new meaning to penis envy. For every AB post carried to this board, Teecee brings 10 from IHUB to AB. Too bad, because I am fundamentally in accord with his positive bias .. why be long if you are not going to have rose colored glasses? So here is a challenge for Teecee .. keep up the positive spin on YOUR board 24/7 and totally ignore this board and prove I am wrong about penis envy.
As for Nicmar, Dmiller, Silverfox-09, et al who profess they are the only "rational investors" on this board who have a "balanced" view of IDCC and are, therefore, unfairly jumped upon for not being always positive, your lives must be incredibly empty that you hold this out as a badge of honor. Not for one minute do I think that Dndodd, revlis, dclarke, DWS, lando1, et al don't have a firmer grasp of the positives AND the negatives of IDCC than all of you put together. Just because they choose not to state the OBVIOUS about IDCC's share price history, lack of licensing success, protracted legal battles, etc ad-nauseum and continue to be optimistic in the face of it all doesn't make them any less astute than you as investors.
Back to lurking.
MO,
Danny
To All .. There was a fair amount of discussion on the Board recently about IDCC's revenue growth potential after Nokia is signed. The Harvard Business School paper below may give credence to those who believe it is folly to project future growth for IDCC's IPR business model based on today's wireless paradigm. One of the most famous instances of similar myopic analysis is that of the Arthur D. Little Study for IBM as to the potential for Xerox copying technology and its associated Business Model. The discussion begins on page 10.
http://www.hbs.edu/research/facpubs/workingpapers/papers2/0001/01-002.pdf
MO,
Danny