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.
O.T. GAB--We were 4 seconds apart on that response!
Regards,
Eli
Probably a true-up payment for the previous 2 years prepayment?
Eli
XDX--Are you sure--I seem to recall that it was taking place in Washington D.C.
Eli
Jim--If you look at the context (in quotes below) in which both IDCC and ERICY stated that their settlement had no bearing, it was written after a sentence that talked to litigation--
The word THEREFORE in the quote below,says to me it is in the context of litigation that they were refering. So Nokia conveniently pulls a sentence out of the context it was written and you call it a lie? I disagree.
Compliments of Corp-Buyer:
10. In making these motions, InterDigital justified its unusual request by representing to the Court that the dispute was entirely private between Ericsson and InterDigital. The record could be sealed and the orders vacated, InterDigital incorrectly told the Court, because no third party would be impacted by the settlement of this case:
‘There is no litigation currently pending in another court that involves the same patents and issues involved in this litigation. Therefore, sealing the above documents would not impact any possible interests of entities that are not parties to this case.' (Joint Motion to Seal and Vacate at p. 11).”
Corp--Thanks for the exerpt from the Nokia arguement. They quote IDCC as saying there was no pending litigation and that was accurate--there was none. There was a licensing agreement in place that ERICY effected, BUT there wasn't any litigation. I am I missing something?
TIA,
Eli
Whizzeresq--I don't believe IDCC ever stated that the ERICY situation had no bearing on any other party. I specifically remember reading that IDCC asserted in a form document given by the court that there wasn't any other "Litigation" that they were involved with that the ERICY suit would effect. I will go back to my files and see if I can produce the document I'm referring to. Does anyone else recall the specific verbage regarding this issue?
TIA,
Eli
Captainslog--Do you have the link to the form 4's that you could post? Interested in the roster of names of acquirers and wondering if everyone who was eligible to buy, did, or if they have a timeline that expired today or if not, how long they have to exercise.
TIA,
Eli
Ronnie--Thanks for your thoughts--Based on my conversation with Janet (re: income tax expense), it sounded like your assessment below is more the likely scenario, but I'm still holding out hope for a surprise before the year end--Happy Holidays!.
Eli
"However, the previously guided income tax expense of $1m to $1.5m might be significantly more percentage-wise. It is possible to have say only a half million more in income tax expense, which might be considered a significant percentage increase over the previous guided amounts of $1m to $1.5m. Materiality is usually defined in relative percentage terms, rather than in absolute dollar amounts. Therefore an immaterial percentage increase in revenues, still might produce a material percentage increase in income tax expense over previous guidance."
I spoke to Janet today about the 8K verbage on the increase in tax expense. It has to do with money paid by OPTION as part of that license--it wasn't material money so there was no 8k but it did have some implications on the tax expense side which they felt came under the full disclosure statute so they included it in this 8k.
Eli
SPREE- I don't know about you, but I was hoping/waiting for news in March of '03 and we got it with the Ericcson settlement! You may recall that Judge Barbara Lynne delayed the start of the trial from January to May and the stock tanked. Many on this board were speculating that IDCC and ERICY were in settlement discussions and needed more time to finalize an agreement. I'll never forget the feeling I had on ST. Patty's day in 2003. I'm hoping for the same this XMAS!! Keep the faith SPREE!
Regards,
Eli
FYI-Interesting read on International Arbitration rules for submitting evidence--
http://www.ssd.com/files/tbl_s29Publications%5CFileUpload5689%5C8985%5CARBI%2020-3%20Solomon.pdf
Beamer--the evidentiary hearing is just that--the arb RULING would come sometime thereafter--it has been discussed on this board, based on history, that a ruling could come down within the following 60 days from the hearing but could go out 6 months or longer. I believe it's been acknowledged here that most cases are ruled on within 6 months and this one should be wrapped up by the summer at the latest.
Hope that helps,
Eli
BTW- I checked Goldberg's insider transactions. He has exercised 30,000 options since Sept 04, converted them to shares, but hasn't yet sold any. When you exercise options, you have a taxable event (the difference between the exercise price and the stock price that day). If I thought the price was going much higher, I would exercise first,thereby creating a cost basis that would be lower than waiting until after the stock rose and then exercising which would create a larger immediate taxable event. Goldberg now has more flexibility to plan his capital gains and by holding those exercised shares for more than a year he converts all gains to long term, which reduces his tax rate to a flat 15%. I believe that's what he is thinking too!
Comments?
Eli
OLDDOG-Thanks for the great revisit reading! eom.
Beamer--here's the link to the company press release (compliments again of DATAROX) where IDCC outlines potential dollar amounts owed by both Nokia and Samsung for CY2002.
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=844914
FYI,
Eli
Beamer--they term it a royalty obligation in the filing--in my mind you can't have a royalty obligation dollar amount without a royalty rate.
Eli
Found it--FYI for anyone interested in reading the 8k from IDCC on the Ericcson settlement, it's post number 13044 courtesy of DATAROX that has the link below
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/354913/000095016803000727/d8k.htm
Eli
JIMLUR or Anyone-- Can someone provide a link to the Interdigital settlement announcement with Ericcson that contained the Nokia liability amounts?
TIA,
Eli
Sinnet --thanks for the clarifcation-eom.
Question/confusion on Scot R's report:
First- Thanks Jim for the copy of the report and for running the best investment board on the Internet. On page 2 Scot has a revenue assumption of 30.6 million for the 4th quarter. It looks like a typo since it says it's an increase from the 30.9 he had. My question is how does he only forecast .02 EPS for Q4, when even at the low end of the company updated revenue guidance of 33.6 million, the profit number would be higher?
TIA-
Happy Thanksgiving To All
Eli
Mschere-didn't IDCC state in their 10K that QCOM needs an updated license for 3G? If QCOM knows that they must get this license then maybe it's equitable for them to just buy IDCC and thus save a boatload of money??
Eli
I was told there was huge institutional interest in purchasing Call options today. I was also told that QCOM was mentioned as an interested party. I guess we can put that with the Jagnotes mention of Nokia buyout. Next week will be clearer since we must wait for options to expire on Friday.
Eli
Sailfree--knowing what you posted why would Samsung be scheduled right behind Nokia in the first place. My take is--you can schedule the hearings right behind each other because thay are just hearings and rulings are a different matter and timeline. Now re-scheduling Samsung AT THIS MOMENT suggests to me that maybe there are constructive discussions with Nokia and why spend money and blocking out time on many people's calander if it won't be necessary--so schedule way out in June just in case this settlement doesn't get done but it just may not be necessary! (I hope!!)
Eli
Thanks for the report Jim--BTW, does anyone find it odd that he doesn't mention the stock buyback? I also don't understand a 19 dollar price target with Nokia and Samsung done even if they were done on the low end of the range. The thought being once they're signed that would have to mean additional licensees and then the projected device growth of the next few years in the industry. I would think that would have to mean a much higher price for 2005--no?
Eli
sjratty-I asked the same question earlier--maybe the reason for the 8K release has to do with Danger's relationship with Sharp and Sharp is a material licensee?
Eli
Ronny--Many good questions you raise--I have a general question regarding the 8K. I thought an 8K needed to be filed when there is a "Material" event. IDCC has announced licenses before in a press release WITHOUT an 8K when there wasn't any material compensation. It appears that DANGER isn't "material", at least initially, and yet there's an 8K.
Any thoughts on why?
Eli
3gdollars--could it be that ERICY agreed to a 3G rate contigent on NOK paying first for 2G (they wanted to see they could trigger NOK). NOK is triggered for 2G, then IDCC/ERICY announce the 3G agreement and NOK is triggered for 3G.If that were true, IDCC management would have given in on the dual-mode payment knowing that when NOK paid for 2g, everything else would flow.
Comments?
What if----IDCC is about to sign a 3G license (say Mot or Ericy) and knowing this license would be a trigger for 3g for Nokia they are now willing to drag the arbitration for 2G out. Could the reason for the late appeal filing be that they have just landed a big one in 3G and now we're in the driver's seat and make Nokia squirm to settle before 2g arbitration!
We could then sign Samsung, Siemens, and a host of others for 3g--2G would be something we could wait on!!
just thinking out of the box--any comments?
Eli
Davids--They (IDCC) could over a discount off of the Ericy rate for pre-payment like they did with Nok/Samsung and I would think they would have some latitude on the percentage discount- that based on the cost of money--could attract a potential new licensee rather than their waiting and having to pay "list price" so to speak. Would they bite at that scenario?
Eli
Ronnie...Ditto EOM
Mschere--just an FYI--The IPAQ's that HTC makes for HP don't currently imploy phone call capability built-in. The first models that will imploy cellular technology start shipping to the HP channel in June.
Eli
Ronnie or anyone--Is it possible that based on what Fagan knows regarding progress with these substantive "economic talks" with potential licensees, he was required to indicate the expense charges of the new compensation plans? What I'm asking is, yes, we haven't yet signed any major deals yet, but if we were close, would he have been required under full disclosure to indicate the potential impact on expenses?
Eli
Ronny-to your point about Campagna not being liked--I was at the ASM last year and got up to ask a question during Q and A. There were sheets on each of the seats at the meeting which stated that if you were going to ask a question, the appropriate protocol was to say your name and state whether you were a shareowner (you could be a proxy for a shareholder). When I stated my name and that I was a shareowner, Harry was very flip and snide in his response--"of course you're a shareowner--why else would you be here!". I explained that it was by the company's direction on the sheets and he essentially shrugged. He didn't care what his directions were on those sheets, he was just pissed because his options were just voted down. I don't believe he should be our COB and I for one will not vote my 30k shares for him when he comes up for election.
Eli
Roath "acquiring" these 10,000 shares at 5.50 could mean he feels that this is a bottom for the stock and that it is a good entry point. I'm speculating that based on Jim's post which states that he had until 2007 to exercise these shares; he could have waited. By exercising today he creates a taxable event between the 5.50 and the price today that he will owe next April 15th to Uncle Sam but he now has a cost basis of 16 dollars and change and if he believes the stock is going much higher, he holds those shares for at least one year and now has a very favorable long term gain tax rate (20%) as opposed to holding the options and having to pay a short term tax rate (as high as 35%) on the difference between 5.50 and the stock price when he would ultimately exercise. (which could be 50+!! we hope). Of course if he sells tomorrow he blows my theory right out of the water!
Comments anyone?
Immelman-According to Yahoo finance--IDCC's number of shares outstanding is 54.9 million. You need to check your facts.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=IDCC#start%20copy%20build
Eli
3Gdollars--I think you're refering to his not wanting to identify which or how many specific patents IDCC has in the standards that they deem essential. I think he adderessed that by saying there are many different variables that could make up a 3G standard based solution and therefore it's difficult to declare essentiality unless you talk to a particular example. At least that's the way I understood it. I don't believe he was trying to "dance" but simply was trying to articulate that there are many complex variables. At the end of the day, you have to decide if you trust and believe our management, and whether or not they will get paid in the end. There are companies paying for IDCC technology in 3G today and that's my biggest validation of IDCC's assertion. Good luck to you.
Eli
GEJIM-I'd like to see the rest of that "PR release" that you describe. If I recall correctly, the work around quote was also part of a piece of a negative Forbes article in December. Interdigital was not happy with that article and their response was posted on the website. The company said the article was full of inaccuracies. I spoke with Janet about that very quote and she said that Howard was misquoted.
She said the companies position is if a patent is essential to a standard, it CANNOT be worked around and still conform to that standard.
Regards,
Eli
Eneerg- I came to the same conclusion- IDCC would approach Sharp with a reduction in rates exactly for the reasons you stated--Let's hope the scenario is correct and keep our seatbelts buckled!
Eli
Amrwonderful-If Lucent was the company that IDCC was close to signing then it may not be a long time to a settlement, especially since IDCC is asking for an injunction in the meantime. I guess what I'm saying is, Lucent could cause the same potential problem for 3G rate setting for Nokia that ERICY did for 2G rates if Lucent is truly a trigger in the agreement. This potential may have Nokia look to set their own 3G rate with IDCC and not another entity like Lucent.
Eli
One more thing--IF Lucent is named as a trigger in that Nokia agreement (and I believe they are), this lawsuit timing is brilliant,if the congecture in my previous post is true.