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.
How can 2 binding arbitrations and one court affirmation of the award with a $167 million bond being put up not be considered set in stone? Based on your knowledge I am certain legally you correct but to state that the award is not set in stone at this point is a bit of a stretch isn't it?
What do you think the likelihood of that being overturned is if instead of delaying the December appeal we had gone forward with it? I would think the bond money would be sitting in our bank now or in the very near future with 2006 resolution to be done by the end of this year.
So while it may not be totally accurate to say it is set in stone, I would think this award is about as certain as any could get. Since IMO that is the case, whatever settlement occurs, we have a basic idea of what is being paid for 2g. If the contract is written up in a way that makes it look like we are playing games with the numbers to make it look like the 3g rate is higher due to forgiveness of 2g it will create a big can of worms when dealing with Nokia and the rest. Everyone knows where we stand in regards to 2g that it is a virtual lock and hopefully the only thing management did with the 2g award is possibly give up some interest. In addition forgiving all 3g money owed up through the same date they did for Nokia would set in stone what is owed at what beginning date.
We have seen what happens when you structure a deal trying to lock in a slippery snake and how it can turn into a legal nightmare as was the case with the Ericy settlement. We announce in March 2003 how Sammy will owe this and Nokia will owe that and here we are approaching 6 years, that's right 6 years and we still haven't gotten the money from Sammy. Hopefully the contract is transparent so we are not discussing this in 2013 and how it will impact the Nokia 3g deal.
Loop, thanks for all the insight you provide and hopefully your decades long investment pays off for you and the rest of us. I would think this is the week and I am certain every night many here will have trouble sleeping. I know I have been having trouble sleeping wanting the morning to get here like a kid on Christmas Eve hoping to wake up to my great big IDCC present.
Message In Reply To:
DD
You are not providing factual information on the Samsung 2g at all. At this point IDCC has nothing set in stone except a judgment for the Samsung II award which continues under appeal. I do believe that IDCC must be forthcoming with the amount that it is applying to 2g in its settlement with Samsung because it is a one time revenue event. I do find it completely amazing that Samsung III has not issued a 2006 award. I would not use the ICA/ICC if it was free to settle disputes for me.
MO
loop
grither, you have to remember the settlement also resolves the 2g issue where we have a unanimous arbitration award and court verdicts confirming the award which will amount to $200 million when you add in the 2006 sales that were not in the original calculation. So when I stated a settlement of $500 million it takes this amount into account and I don't think the stock will move any higher from here and will probably go down. Remember whatever Sammy pays, Nokia is already paid up on 2g so the 3g rate better be decent or you can discount the amount we can expect to receive from Nokia when we settle with them.
You said a deal even half the $500 million I posted and the stock should move positively? You are kidding, right? A deal half that size would mean a total of only $250 million which would mean that we are being paid $50 million for all 3g handsets thru 2012 when you take into consideration the $200 million we are virtually certain to get even without a settlement. If that were to happen you would not see another licensee of IDCC pay another dime IMO. Considering how much NEC, Sharp, LG and others are paying us, we better have settled for much more than $50 million for 3g from Sammy. You would also see the stock down into the teens easily. It would be like no 3g deal at all.
I stand by what I said in my post and if you think about it, $500 million is at the very low end of what we should be getting for 3g when you consider the estimated 700 million phones that Sammy will sell between 2006 and 2012 plus the money owed for 2g.
Remember the Nokia deal? We won an arbitration award of $250 million then we forgave all 3g sales up thru April, 2006, the date of the settlement. Nokia is only obligated to pay for 3g products from April 2006 forward with no more money coming for 2g. Now we have another arbitration award for $200 million and if we do the same that will mean that Sammy owes us the $200 million plus royalties on handsets from April 2006 thru 2012, the date the contract ends. The deal needs to spell out precisely how much is for 2g and how much is for 3g so when Nokia requests the contract during the ITC investigation, it is clear what we are getting and what is FRAND for 3g. I know we will never see it but hopefully they have learned their lessons and that is the reason for the 45 day delay.
Message In Reply To:
Thank you for your calculations. Probably accurate in regard to number of phones sold and rates per phone. But I would like to add my opinion to balance some of the thoughts of many on this board. You said:
"My guess is anything around $500 million and the stock stays around where it is at or drops a little since that will be the low end of what would be expected. Higher than that and we should move higher; IMO depending on how much higher the settlement is than my low end guess of $500 million, will determine how much higher we go."
What? A settlement of $500 million- THE LARGEST DEAL IN THE COMPANY'S HISTORY- and the stock will stay flat or fall??
I think the stock should jump on a deal half that size. Samsung is settled and the stock should be positively motivated on a deal of any size. We are not talking about resetting the value of a current deal. THIS IS A NEW DEAL. If Samsung pays $0.40- $0.50 per phone (and I think it will be much more), that will still be $100's of millions that drop right to the bottom line of this profitable company with lots of cash and no debt.
I think even if the Samsung deal is less than $1 per phone it will still create a situation that is vey positive for IDCC.
Cautions:
1. Even your numbers for phone sales assume much growth.
2. IMO, IDCC did not go into the ITC decision from a postion of strength. The ITC staff attorney sided with Samsung. And even if he hadn't IDCC had much more to lose. Samsung risked paying the full rate and obligation they were assumed to already owe. IDCC risked payment on all future contracts.
3. IDCC would not settle and get they rate they started negotiation with. Settlement is about compromise.
4. No one from IDCC or Samsung is going to tell us what the rate per phone is. Only if a deal like LG is done will we know the full cost to Samsung. Most likely I think we will still be debating the possible rate even after we get a full settlement announcement.
How is there a difference when both of those statements start with the very big word IF. They mean the same thing. We all know that the company has stated that currently they are achieving about 2 bucks/phone so using the buck fifty AS AN EXAMPLE of what it would look like is not far of a stretch. But it is just that, AN EXAMPLE of what it will look like. 4 years ago nobody would have been able to predict accurately what the licensing landscape would look like today just like 4 years from now or even more from when they first starting using the example.
Mickey stop setting yourself up for false expectations and trying to pump the stock. It will be what it is and no amount of you repeating over and over what Merritt stated will change things. Why don't you finally drop it? If you are correct, that will be wonderful for all IDCC investors.
Message In Reply To:
Desert dweller
You are full of baloney, he didn't use the words if we can achieve, one heck of a differnce between if we can achieve, and if we can hold. To achieve you are trying to get their to hold you already have it. Now his words if we can HOLD a $1.50 in 2012 not even 2009 but 2012 what the revenues would be. So don't distort what was said. The word achieved was not used in the presentation.
Can anyone get the written speech as the audio is not available. If so please post it here for all to read and then I can eat crow, or crow one, and I welcome the presentation to be posted, as I have not a thing to fear, but only seeing me be justified in what I have stated.
Mickey
mickey I am convinced you did fall off a turnip truck. Merritt has been saying the same thing for several years now. He says, "For example, if we are to achieve an average amount of revenue per unit of a buck fifty in 2012 this is what we could achieve."
EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU TIME AND AGAIN, YOU CONTINUE TO FORGET THE WORDS IN BOLD ABOVE. So yes, I do believe as you have said that you must have fallen off a turnip truck. I hope you read this before it gets deleted, actually I hope it doesn't get deleted so maybe you will stop repeating over and over what YOU THINK Merritt said. Have you read the standard disclaimers about projections and how they are unreliable etc, etc? If not maybe you should go to IDCC's 10k and read the disclaimers at the beginning of it and how they are under no obligation to inform you if things turn out differently than projected.
Message In Reply To:
Desert dweller
Lets assume that I have been repeating what Merritt said at the London conference 10 days yes 10 days after the Samsung announcement. Who do you believe me, or Tom Carpenter?
Tom has not a thing to support his caluclations, but to lay it out here for people like you to believe. I on the other hand listened to a officer of the company giving a public presentation that was available for all to hear, not just a few but anyone that wanted to go to the web page and listen to it.
Now here is the kicker you know how much abuse I take, and trust me every one of these turkeys who jump my bones and want me exiled, either didn't listen or didn't want to acknowledge that I was telling the truth. If they had listened and found out that I had made any mistake they would have been on it like white on rice. Nope not a one could deny those was Merritt's own words, his figures his chart.
I will say it again do you believe Merritt, or Carpenter, and tell me where Carpenter got his numbers and was he privy to sometthing the rest of us wasn't, yet he put it out for all of you to believe it to be reality, and if anyone is dreaming its Mr. Carpenter as he certainly can't say he got those numbers from IDCC.
Mickey
The AGE OLD QUESTION should finally be answered this week or at least in the very near future:
IDIOTS OR GENIUS, WHICH ARE IDCC INVESTORS?
I am hoping this is one of those rare opportunities that goes totally against the saying that when something seems to good to be true it probably is. We can and probably have all projected out the numbers for IDCC's potential revenue over the years and decades and told family and friends of how good this company can be. Only to have the court system hold it back for one reason or other, a terrible decision here, a blatantly wrong one there and before you know it, you are over 5 years into binding arbitration. The Sammy agreement will let us know whether or not IDCC has the REAL POTENTIAL to be what we have been dreaming about.
As you said, IDCC will not say it is $1/phone but like the LG agreement, I have no doubt the agreement will be so big that they will have to tell us how much it is worth, unless Sammy is taking a % of unit cost to determine the amount of royalties owed. In that case IDCC will still have to tell us the dollar amount that Sammy is paying up front since the amount will be material and then we can guesstimate what it is worth based on the public filings so far. Ronny has been excellent at his analysis over the years and I am sure he will do his best again this time around.
This should be the week (or next) that really does show us where we stand. Will it be the start of a long uptrend or a time when long term stockholders get out because they have finally lost faith. I would think this will be the turning point for many of us. Good luck all and hopefully it turns out that we are the geniuses we have been hoping we are.
Message In Reply To:
DD, great post!
The main issue however is transparency, we will likely not get any forward looking estimation except if Samsung applies for a lump sum payment. If Samsung chooses a per phone rate we won't know a lot more than now. Obviously, IDCC won't say it's '$1/phone' in the 8K.
IDCC will not receive any more money for 2g or 2.5g from Nokia and were included in the Sammy arbitration award which will approach $200 million for all 2g and 2.5g products. The Sammy award actually received was for sales thru 2005 but Sammy also owed for 2006 at which time they will no longer owe on 2g. When settled, Sammy also will not owe on 2g or 2.5g products for sales after 12/31/06. The award for 2g was $134 million thru 2005 add in 2006 sales plus interest and the final award would have easily been $200 million owed for 2g products which were part of the settlement sheet.
Message In Reply To:
Using these numbers, the total 3G units for both NOK & SAM for Apr 2006 (assume 75%) to 2009E is 757 million units. At one buck per unit that's serious money.
Don't know what rate IDCC gets for GSM EDGE Mid-Tier? Is this 2.5G and was this included in NOK 2G settlement?
I found what is probably a very reasonable estimate of sales from Tom Carpentar's report for sales 2008 - 2012. This does not include sales for 2006 and 2007 but gives me a good idea of what to look for. Here are Tom's estimates for 3g phones by Samsung:
2008.....68 million
2009.....87 million
2010....113 million
2011....148 million
2012....184 million
Total.. 600 million for 2008 - 2012.
In addition I would guess that you could add in another 100 million total for 2006 and 2007 for total 3g handset shipments for Samsung and you are looking at an estimated 700 million 3g handsets to be shipped by Sammy for the period April, 2006 thru Dec 2012. Now you can apply whatever rate you want to for 3g plus the 2g arbitration award to come up with what you think is reasonable for a settlement to see for this week. By any measure the amount we should see announced this week or next as a settlement whether it is Tom Carpentar's low estimate, Data Rox estimate of around a buck a phone or Mickey's dream world estimate and there is a huge amount. Even splitting TC's and DR's estimate and using $.75/phone plus 2g and the amount will move the stock a lot IMO.
Hopefully the settlement is at least Data's estimate of about a buck a phone based on what I think would be a reasonable settlement where Sammy pays only for phones over the same time period that Nokia has to pay beginning April, 2006 and forward and then we should see the stock rise nicely after the announcement instead of a buy on the rumor/expectation then sell on the news. My guess is anything around $500 million and the stock stays around where it is at or drops a little since that will be the low end of what would be expected. Higher than that and we should move higher; IMO depending on how much higher the settlement is than my low end guess of $500 million, will determine how much higher we go.
All JMO but personally I am hoping for at least $700 million thru 2012 which I think would move the stock substantially higher than where we are currently at and I don't think that would be considered pie in the sky dreaming. To me a buck a phone for 3g based on 700 million estimated units plus the money owed for 2g based on the arbitration award less some discount and then it will really rocket. All just one person's guess and I don't think we have to wait much longer. To me we are overdue for the details.
Thoughts/comments?
Link to TC's report from 11/08, page 4 is where I got the estimated sales figures for 2008 - 2012. Over the same 2008-2012 time period Nokia is expected to sell 983 million 3g units according to TC. Add in another 125 million or so units (my WAG) for 4/06 - 12/07 and they will owe on over 1.1 billion phones for the same period. Can you say WOW and I don't mean iWOW either.
http://wirelessledger.com/idccNov262008.pdf
Question regarding actual and estimated 3g handset sales for Sammy from April 2006, the date Nokia's 3g obligation begins till 2012. Data, Ed, Olddog or anyone else have what amounts to a realistic estimate for number of 3g handsets Sammy is expected to sell during this time period?
We know approximately what is owed for 2g and if we have the estimated handsets they will sell over this 6 year period, individually we could apply whatever figure we feel comfortable with to estimate what is a reasonable amount Sammy will owe us whether it is Tom Carpentar's low end estimate of $.50/phone or Mickey's dream of $2/phone or somewhere in between. I know they actually owe for all 3g products going back much farther than April 2006 but in a settlement both sides give up something and to me the above would be a reasonable basis for forming the estimate of money due from Sammy.
Sammy owes roughly $200 million for 2g due to the arbitration so add to that the estimate of what will be owed based on the number of estimated devices to be sold and we can come up with a reasonable figure IMO. Thanks and let's hope IDCC's shareholder stimulus arrives next week. This waiting is driving me nuts.
Why would IDCC be at the CES? When did they start selling comsumre products?
Message In Reply To:
If IDCC is in Las Vegas then Samsung could be there too. This the "approximately 45 days".
mo
The day isn't over yet. I think we have as good a chance as any time today to still see something by 5:00 PM EST. That is my guess and I am sticking to it, especially since my guess of this past Wednesday didn't pan out LOL.
Message In Reply To:
VERY DISAPPOINTING that we received no news today. MO
z
We also don't know exactly when the term sheet was signed. We know when the PR came out but the term sheet easily could have been signed a few days before which would have started the clock ticking on the 45 days which would mean that the 4 day clock has already began ticking.
BTW where is the volume?
Message In Reply To:
Gio,
I agree. When IDCC put that 45 day wording in the press release they know investors will be expecting something after that 45 day timeframe. Otherwise they should have just said by February 9th. Also I want to stress the SEC FD rules provided to us by olddog, IDCC has 4 business days to file the agreement. While its speculation I wouldn't be suprised if SAM waited the ful 45 days which would have been yesterday to decide which payment plan. This means that IDCC has until Wednensday to disclose the agreement. If wednesday comes and goes with no update than I will start to worry. I believe the LG deal was signed late in the week and IDCC waited the full 4 days to release the details on a Monday after the market closed so its not unusual for them to hold off a few days before disclosing the details.
I wonder if today is the day that IDCC shareholders get their own stimulus plan in the way of a good announcement with Sammy. The government is talking about a massive stimulus plan for main street, IDCC shareholders after all these years deserve our own stimulus plan. I am surprised it wasn't announced yet, maybe today, maybe Monday but it needs to be announced soon. Good luck all.
I just wish it were the other annoumcement we have been waiting on. This is driving me nuts. OK I was already there but it is keeping me there.
Message In Reply To:
dang...I'm good! Just about an hour exactly!
InterDigital Signs iWOW to Worldwide 2G and 3G Patent License Agreement
Thursday January 8, 2009, 4:02 pm EST
When the email arrived announcing iWow, it made my heart skip a beat. I thought their press release had Wow in it to announce the other agreement we are waiting for LOL. I thought that must be big if they are saying wow in the headline of the release. Anyone know who they are?
Message In Reply To:
just signed IWOW
Will today be the day we get to do this?
You are not the only one buy why wait, let's get it out now. I know I am on the edge of my seat expecting one and I am certain I am not the only one LOL. Good luck all and I hope this time we are all vindicated for what we have been through.
Message In Reply To:
I would LOVE a PR in about an hour !!!!!
[Suppressed Chart Link]
Here is the site that lists trading halts for anyone who is interested. I don't know if it is real time or not.
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=TradeHalts
If the news is released during market hours, I would think it should be halted but who knows?
Message In Reply To:
Does anyone think trading will be halted when the news finally hits? Opinions welcome. I think it will be halted.
z
Why ask 100% when you know that is an unachievable goal this year, next year or even the year after? Is it just to pump the stock like you did back earlier this decade and last decade? I understand you are bullish but you are way overly bullish and you know where that got you and other investors, including me, earlier. The only reason you keep trying to get someone else to agree with your 100% premise is to pump unrealistic expectations on this board.
I am done responding to you. Have a good day and good luck with your pumping, I hope it works out for you this time around.
Message In Reply To:
Desert dweller
Is it wrong to ask using 100%? Do I expect 100% not likely but I do expect over 90% and why would they use 75% when they have 50% and Nokia is 35% if that isn't 85% I will kiss your rear in court square and give you a hour to draw a crowd.
Mickey
Why do you keep asking about 100% license rate when the CEO who YOU keep quoting is projecting 75% coverage in 2012? Stop already, please.
We have the potential to achieve 100% but that is pie in the sky dreaming this year and for the foreseeable future.
I would think the 45 days mean calendar days not business days and I would bet that it is written in stone as far as the parties are concerned, it is the investors that are in the dark as what approximately 45 days mean as to the exact date.
Message In Reply To:
Wilco, Although today is the 45th day is it possible IDCC meant 45 business days?? Did we discuss that?? I wish they would have provided a calendar date as it would have made it written in stone.
You can also add the allowed 4 days for an announcement to the approximately 45 days. My guess is we hear today. This waiting is driving me crazy.
Message In Reply To:
gio,
I am expecting something today or tomorrow but there are 4 problems with counting the 45 days.
1. When do we start counting the 45 days.
2. "Approximately"
3. It appears that the litigations will terminate only when the first payment is received and when will that be.
4. There is no mention when the license agreement will be completed.
mo
It is amazing how he can suck you back into the debate isn't it? I thought all posts related to the 2 bucks a phone were going to be deleted? We are all guilty of being sucked back in by Mickey. It has been explained again and again to him and he refuses to listen to it. Many here complain about hidden agenda's when someone questions management, what is Mickey's agenda? I know some will jump all over me for questioning good ole Mick but ....
Eric, don't you know that no matter how ridiculous or erroneous a report is, once it is in print and as long as it is overly optimistic, that must be gospel. No amount of rationality will change that LOL. If on the other hand the report were to be negative or slightly negative it would be brandished as being wrong and stupid.
Thank for all the info you bring to the board although some hate to be brought back to reality when presented with facts and more reasonable information.
This board has been like group therapy for many long time stockholders. I don't believe there is ulterior motive for most who post here, they post in order to try to keep sane LOL. No amount of posting whether good or bad will change the stock price for any length of time. It will be results produced by management that will change the stock price and that is what is keeping everyone on the edge of their seats right now and since we don't have the info we crave, we post about what might happen, both good and bad. Good luck all and hopefully we get the news we are waiting years (and decades in some cases) for. We are now at the high for the day. Keep going.
Message In Reply To:
no, I'm suggesting the grousing and whining of various IHUBber's grasping at anything potentially negative are responsible
Too bad the guy can't even get his facts straight. But it is news from an outside source at least. Maybe he will actually do some research and learn something about IDCC.
We should play a game while we wait on real news. How many errors can you spot in the article?
Message In Reply To:
InterDigital (IDCC) is Poised to Advance Following Samsung Settlement
InterDigital (IDCC: View sentiment for IDCCsentiment, chart, options) is not a widely known technology firm, but the company's SlimChips are essential in the world of broadband wireless communication. Just ask Samsung, as InterDigital recently settled a patent dispute with the cellular phone giant in regard to the company's 3G and 2G SlimChip designs.
With the legal battle out of the way, investors can now turn their attention to more pressing matters. Specifically, IDCC has logged an impressive technical performance since bottoming near $16 per share in late October 2008. During this time frame, the stock has more than doubled along the support of its 10-day and 20-day moving averages.
IDCC is now poised to challenge long-term resistance in the 28-29 region, an area that has held the security in check since July 2007.
So, where does this leave the equity going forward? Remember, we need to examine more than just technical performance and a settled legal dispute in order to determine if a stock can move F.A.R.: Fast, Aggressively, and in the Right direction. For such potentially lucrative moves in an equity, it must adhere to our Expectational Analysis ® methodology, which takes into account technical performance, fundamental wherewithal, and the all-important investor sentiment aspect.
In today's edition of the Casual Contrarian, I take a closer look at the 3 elements of Expectational Analysis ® and how they apply to InterDigital in order to determine if the stock would make a nice contrarian play. So sit back, enjoy, and good luck in your trading.
http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/commentary/content/interdigital+idcc+is+poised+to+advance+following+samsung+settlement/observations.aspx?ID=90298
Jim, IMO the amounts are in addition to the amounts you posted.
Some are missing the point of the questions being raised on this board about the bonuses. RIGHT NOW we don't know if they were overpaid, underpaid or were paid the right amount. Since there has not been an announcement letting shareholders know any inkling of the Sammy deal we don't know if these bonuses were well deserved or not. I think they should have held off until after more of the details were released. That is my personal opinion which you have the right to agree with or not.
Hopefully for all our sakes, when the details of Sammy are more transparent, we are all saying they deserved these bonuses and more. I don't think we will have much longer to wait to find out. Keeping my fingers crossed that management got paid for a job very well done, but right now we just don't know. I have no doubt they worked hard but what are the fruits of their efforts that we as shareholders will reap?
We are all on the edge of our seats waiting for the final announcement which will cause all kinds of things to be said and posted here.
Message In Reply To:
DD, Thanks but help me understand this a little better. Are the amounts below in addition to what I compiled?? TIA
William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer: $882,000
Scott A. McQuilkin, Chief Financial Officer: $192,500
Lawrence F. Shay, Executive Vice President of Intellectual Property and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel: $402,618
Mark A. Lemmo, Sr., Executive Vice President, Business Development and Project Management: $504,394
You are seeing all this carping because while what you said about the share price rise at this point is true, will it be permanent? That is the billion dollar question and why many including me are not happy about putting the cart before the horse so to speak.
The bonuses were awarded before we even know the results of how they really did. Sure they licensed Sammy but at this point we don't even know if they will average a penny per phone or 2 bucks per phone or some number in between. All licenses are not created equal and until we get some of the details the current relative strength in the stock price could be temporary. Hopefully it is not and it is just the start of a long term rise but we just don't know and I think the company should have held off the granting of these bonuses until after some of the details of the largest contract in the company's history is made public.
Message In Reply To:
I am tired of listening to all this carping. This company has increased in share value while almost all others have declined on an average of 40%. The salaries I saw in these reports are very reasonable considering the return they are providing in this economy. It is a known fact that if you want to motivate employees, you give them a share of the company and its success AND failure. You have them put some of their own skin in the game. When they succeed, they stay with the company and make it grow. I think IDCC seems to have done this very well.
I, for one, am holding my shares for a long time. I am also putting some more people on ignore.
Jim, you forgot the next paragraph of bonuses that will also be paid out shortly. Some of it (30%) is being held back until the resolution of the modem business but it should be paid out some time this year. Now that we know how management was taken care of, it sure would be nice to see how we are taken care of by way of the job they did with Sammy.
The committee also approved, effective January 1, 2009, the increase of the target payout amount for Mr. McQuilkin under the LTCP to one hundred percent (100%) of his annual base salary.
According to the terms of the performance-based cash awards the named executive officers received pursuant to the July 1, 2005 through January 1, 2009 LTCP cycle, each named executive officer’s target amount was established as a percentage of his then-effective base salary, and payouts are based on the company’s achievement of certain pre-established performance criteria during the July 1, 2005 through January 1, 2009 program period. The committee reviewed the performance criteria and accomplishments for the July 1, 2005 through January 1, 2009 program cycle and took note that the company is evaluating a number of strategic options for its modem business, which options could include an acquisition or a partnership to achieve the appropriate scale needed to succeed in the market, as well as the sale of the modem business. Accordingly, the committee approved the following cash payouts to the named executive officers, and seventy percent (70%) of each amount is expected to be paid no later than March 15, 2009. The remaining thirty percent (30%) of each payout due to the named executive officers will be paid upon resolution of the strategic direction of the company’s modem business.
William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer: $882,000
Scott A. McQuilkin, Chief Financial Officer: $192,500
Lawrence F. Shay, Executive Vice President of Intellectual Property and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel: $402,618
Mark A. Lemmo, Sr., Executive Vice President, Business Development and Project Management: $504,394
Message In Reply To:
Warbil, Like you I too am very anxious to hear the results of the Samsung deal. Looking at what Merritt was granted for last year indicates the company had a very good year.
From what I see Merritt got 15909 shares for free or $437,000, a $299,250 cash bonus and 4000 RSUs currently worth over $100,000. That totals about $836,250 over his salary.
His new salary is $500,000. Maybe olddog can tell us what he made last year.
Following the assessment of the company’s achievement of its fiscal year 2008 goals and individual performance during fiscal year 2008, the committee approved the following bonus awards to the named executive officers pursuant to the company’s annual employee bonus plan, which are expected to be paid in February 2009.
William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer: $299,250
Scott A. McQuilkin, Chief Financial Officer: $117,700
Lawrence F. Shay, Executive Vice President of Intellectual Property and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel: $174,375
Mark A. Lemmo, Sr., Executive Vice President, Business Development and Project Management: $121,746
One hundred percent (100%) of all bonuses set forth above will be paid in cash.
Upon further assessment of the individual performance by certain executive officers during fiscal year 2008 and taking note of increased levels of stock ownership guidelines for certain executive officers effective January 1, 2009, the committee approved the following one-time awards of restricted stock units ("RSUs") to the named executive officers set forth below, which were granted on January 1, 2009 and will vest annually, in three equal installments, beginning on the grant date.
William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer: 4,000 RSUs
Scott A. McQuilkin, Chief Financial Officer: 5,000 RSUs
Lawrence F. Shay, Executive Vice President of Intellectual Property and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel: 8,000 RSUs
The development expenses will not go down unless they lay off all the people who were working on the chip side of the business. They will reassign those people and the nature of the expenses will change but unless they reduce head count, the expense total will remain the same if not go up. Personally I hope development expenses go up so they can continue to develop and create new patented technology for future generations. Tech companies like this one need to continue to fund development and the expenses will not be going down substantially IMO but you will refuse to even consider it because it is contrary to your opinion.
Message In Reply To:
Jimlur
I have no knowledge of the slimchips capabilities. I know very little about the chips and what IDCC is selling or aquiring or merging with. I hope whatever they do is the right thing for the shareholders. It looks like they are spending a great deal of money on the development section and if they sell that section and get a decent price that should be great as expenses will go down from not needing all this work.
I don't know where you thought I knew or was insisting that IDCC be getting or doing anything with the slimchip. It has been IDCC that touted the slimchip not me. I have no clue as to what it does, do you?
Mickey
Jim, you did see the 8k today which in addition to all those shares they announced they gave away, the huge cash bonuses that were also given for their outstanding performance didn't you? Maybe the job they did was outstanding and maybe they deserved the bonuses based on the Sammy deal which has yet to be disclosed but to announce it prior to letting everyone know how good a job they did was in poor taste IMO.
Why didn't they wait until the Sammy details have been released and hit the wires? We are still in the dark as to whether or not it is bad, decent, good, very good or fantastic. The bonuses paid when including the stock and cash just announced sure leads one to believe the Sammy deal should be very good but until we know for sure, it was in bad taste to announce the bonuses ahead of time IMO.
I sure hope we find out in the next few days and IMO the approximate 45 days actually in the announcement meant exactly that number of days but they said approximately because the clock may have started ticking a few days prior to the announcement that a deal has been structured. I don't believe we will find out any later than the end of this week. Sure approximately 45 days could mean 50 or even more but I doubt it. I think the 45 days was from the day they signed the term sheet which was not necessarily the same day the agreement was announced to us. I believe they came to the term sheet agreement a couple of days prior to the announcement which would mean we could easily hear about the finalization of it even tomorrow unless they hold it back for the 4 days. I guess we will see. Good luck all.
Message In Reply To:
Warbil why would they buy shares on the open market when they all got their bonus for their performance in 2008 yesterday?
The only thing I can see that they accomplished in 2008 was the Samsung licensing which the investors still don't have a clue as to what it's worth to the company?
IMO I'm very disappointed the company had the gall or the nerve to award the shares to the insiders before letting the shareholders know what the deal was worth?
That IMO shows the COB as well as the board of directors has no class.
Is it fair they award shares before the facts or after the facts?
All the shares awarded yesterday had a zero cost basis to those that got shares. The company sold shares to cover the with holding taxes.
Seems all shares were bought at $27.50
Merritt got 15909 or $437,000
Brezski got 2523 or -$69,382
Sprecher got 4877 or-$134,117
Shay got 14980 or $411,950
McQuinlin got 11000 or $302,500
Point got 7443 or $204,682
Nolan got 7469 or $205,397
Miller got 5281 or $145,227
Lemmo got 6179 or $169,922
Kieiran got 5150 or $141,625
Isaccs got 7874 or $216,535
It's hard for me to understand how this company continues to make employees very wealthy while shareholders continue to earn interest that equals a savings bond and have taken great risks.
JMO
John, thanks for posting what you heard but like I said, whether or not it was true 5 years ago, it is not true today and never should have been IMO. Back in the 90's management announced contracts before they even shipped product. Anyone remember the $250 million Myanmar deal in '96 or '97 that never materialized? For as long as I have owned the stock (since '93) I believe they announced agreements prior to actually receiving the cash when collection was not considered in doubt. Myanmar is an example of a deal gone bad after they announced it though.
Unless my memory is wrong (which it could be LOL) there is a disclosure somewhere that all material elements of an agreement need to be complete for the company to announce it. Material elements being complete does not mean cash actually has to hit our bank, just the contractual promise to pay could suffice. I believe this is where there is confusion on this board and it is believed that all material elements means cash hitting the bank and that just isn't the case. It keeps getting repeated which then makes it fact even when there are examples like LG, Apple, Myanmar etc that disprove the message board myth, it is almost impossible to stop for whatever reason.
I was not trying to knock or doubt what you heard, just trying to set the record straight that there was a misinterpretation along the way, either with what Janet believed 5 years ago to be the case, or how she thought she heard the question and her answer, who knows. Thanks for setting the record straight about what you posted.
Message In Reply To:
desert it has been 4 or 5 years since I called Janet, but that is what she told me at the time and I never thought to question what she said. Maybe they do not adhere to this anymore or as data said, it could have changed with LG. I do not post much anymore but I am very careful what I say because I do not want to infer anything that I do not feel comfortable in saying and try to remember to say jmho if it is just that.
John, I don't know what she told you and how the question was phrased or with what specific contract it related to. If she told you that IDCC never announces a contract until the check hits the bank then I don't think Janet knows what she is talking about and I don't believe that is the case.
As you know, there are times when things are misinterpreted and what one person thinks is the meaning of a statement and what the person who heard it actually thinks it means can be exactly opposite of the real meaning. This is especially true with the written word since you don't get the nuances of the spoken word nor the ability to read one's body language and pitch when spoken sort of like in the message boards LOL. There is also the distinct possibility that Janet may have misinterpreted your question.
There is no rule or regulation that would require IDCC to only announce a contract unless and until the cash has hit the bank IMO. As long as collectability is not in doubt, the announcement can be made while the ink is still wet on the agreement even if the cash doesn't hit the bank for months.
Message In Reply To:
data, are you questioning whether she told me that or that I made it up ?
It is one of those message board myths that keeps getting posted as truth. If it keeps getting posted enough times on this board, it then becomes fact and nobody should question it. I believe the same happened with Apple too. As long as you have a valid and signed contract, the receipt of the money is not necessary to make it a material event that needs to be disclosed IMO.
Message In Reply To:
John - pretty sure we got the LG news and dollar amount before the 1st of the 3 payments hit the bank....
Any time we have a situation when we are awaiting news on signed agreements, I remember Janet Points words..."IDCC does not release info about signed agreements until the money is in the bank"...keeping that in mind, whenever we get the news, there will be Samsung money in IDCC's account. I have been in IDCC in various degrees since 1996 and nothing is ever easy. This has not been an exception. I agree that the deal is done and there is no way in the world this 8K would have been released if it were not...just waiting on the money...could be any day...maybe tomorrow...maybe not, but it is coming. jmho
That will never happen IMO.
Message In Reply To:
Let's hope that some of these officers and directors use their cash bonuses to buy some IDCC stock on the public market. That would sure send a bullish signal to Wall Street.
And we thought Merrit did ok with just the stock grants. Boy did he get a helluva bonus especially considering how in the dark we are at the moment with Sammy. I sure hope he earned every penny of it with the Sammy deal. If that deal doesn't come out at least decent, these bonus payments in addition to the stock payments just announced sure will add fuel to this board and not in a good way.
Good luck all, I hope this is a sign that the deal with Sammy was a very good one for Merritt to have deserved all that bonus money and stock he was just given. What kind of deal would we have needed for Merrit to have deserved all that?
triangle, so was the arbitration. Unfortunately the street (and me and others on this board) right now does not believe it fully otherwise we would be firmly into the 30's right now IMO. With Sammy and Nokia past experience has shown us they don't believe in what they agree to in all cases and many times will fight until the bitter end.
Message In Reply To:
THE AGREEMENT IS BINDING
I haven't got a clue why they would and that is what has me nervous. I do think a deal is done or extremely close but Sammy's past behavior has me a little concerned to say the least. I sure hope Sammy isn't playing management. Only a short time to find out. Good luck.
Message In Reply To:
How many times in a contract do you see that something is to be done in "approximately" X-number of days ? Why would IDCC allow such uncertainty to be put into a contract with such a contentious party ??
The form 4's have nothing to do with anything other than management's annual bonus. These were shares given to management for a job _______ done. We should be able to fill in the blank within the week to determine what type of job management has done for us. Was it a job well done or poorly done? It all depends on the financial aspect of the Sammy deal soon to be announced. I am hopeful we can give them a big thumbs up for the job they did but past experience has me a little, ok a lot, nervous. Good luck all, not much longer to see what we have.
Message In Reply To:
Personally I believe the Form 4's have a lot to do with it.
But what do I know?
Why would you expect anything different from Sammy? Lawyers (and accountants) take a series of classes in order to get proficient on how to procrastinate until the last possible minute. Remember, don't put off tomorrow what you can postpone until the day after. This procrastination doesn't come naturally LOL. The longer it takes, the more they can bill.
BTW, the judge will get involved on Feb 9th if the parties don't have an agreement by then. That is the date he will issue his decision according to the revised schedule.
Message In Reply To:
Evidently, Samsung is waiting until the absolute last minute to sign the agreement. How long can they push it until the ITC judge gets involved again ?
Did an IDCC investor make that up? That is what I hope to see this week, Charlie Brown (and IDCC) finally gets his revenge
LOL.
Message In Reply To:
OT