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.
loop, I just called JP and asked her about IDCC's presence in the iPhone. The answer was much the same that has been already posted. I prefaced my question by stating that it was reported that Bill Merritt, at the ASM, had said that if IFX was in the iPhone, IDCC would be there. Janet said that statement would still be true. She said that IDCC had made contributions to the Infinion 3G product and if Infinion's chip was in the iPhone, IDCC's contributions were also. She said that there were several teardowns that reported that IFX was in there. I made the note to her that with all what she had said, she still had not made the statement the IDCC was there and that I assumed that I would still have to deduce that information. She said that Infinion had not released the news that their chip was in the phone and so, until they did, IDCC would not be able to make such a statement. For clarity, I asked "even though the chips were marked Infinion, you can't make that statement"?, She said yes.
Please make note that I am paraphrasing as best I can, our conversation but from the tone of it and the way she responded, I am completely comfortable with the belief that IDCC IS in the iPhone. She is a nice lady to talk to and appeared to be attempting to answer my question as best she could, within the guidelines she had to follow.
This of course, still is not enough to announce to the street.
xdx, not exactly. Yes; if it was a stated fact that IDCC was in the iPHONE, I believe it would support the stock. However, my question as to whether anyone had called IDCC to see was because someone else posted that, at the ASM, IDCC said that if the IFX chip was in the iPhone, IDCC was there. I guess, ultimately, my question is; do we know IDCC won't tell us if they are in the iPhone because someone already tried or are we just assuming that.
Loop, outstanding post! As I try to plow through the pile of posts on this board, I sometimes get numb to their implications. It was not until I read your post that I realized the threat posed by the associations that are banding together to buy out the patents of little companies so that the "patent trolls" don't come suing. Hell, the little companies wouldn't sell at all if they could only get paid for their inventions. Unless they have the deep pockets of a company such as IDCC, they will get crushed by the burden of legal cost long before they can hope to receive a dime. Your argument should be required reading for Mr Levi if his reasoning for his "no violation" statement is based on IDCC not having offered Samsung a FRAND rate.
How brilliant of the bigger companies to approach the small inventor and tell them the cold hard facts that nobody is going to voluntarily license with them and the only logical way out is to sell the patent to their trust?
Has anyone called IDCC and asked about this?
In your opinion how do we get some publicity that "any number of our patents" are in the iphone? I was told last month to wait for the engineers to take the phone apart. Well that is done. IFX doesn't give us any credit anywhere. AAPL did not or will either
captainslog, sounds good.
To the others reading this; I know there are many here that enjoy the discussion of IDCC and technology. Have you ever thought to yourself something on the line of, "It would be neat to be an author of articles to be published"? Well, here's an opportunity! Maybe you've thought, "I wouldn't mind doing something like that but I'm not sure I really have enough of a background for it". I believe the combination of posters here give us the resources to back you up. Not sure of something? Maybe olddog wouldn't mind getting the information for you.
From what I can tell, there are quite a few posters here that e-mail or private post each other. Perhaps some of you would like to collaborate on some articles or opinion pieces. Maybe you just have a good idea on a subject line or perhaps other fresh idea for the effort. It could be a lot of fun for some of the retired board members. Revlis, with all the information you bring to the board, there's no doubt in my mind that you would constantly be finding articles that related somehow to IDCC. Rmarchma, would you be opposed to projecting earnings? I think many here trust your numbers better than anyone else you can find.
Who else would be willing to pitch in?
Incidentally Captain, I like your idea of taking posts, similar to loop's when he's on a roll and, with permission, use them as the premise for a short opinion article. There are days when the discussion between Ghors, whizzer, loop and other legal minds provide a wealth of material. You could go on with the possibilities, depending on who would want to be involved.
If you need to contact me, my email address is plumear@hotmail.com.
That's a good thought Desert dweller. You never know how agreements are constructed, (such as does IDCC report after getting paid and does IFX pay upon shipment or after they are paid, etc) but IMO, your idea is a possibility.
I agree. Kent is a talented writer. He expresses himself very well and has a strong ability to make a good point.
dmiller, IMO, the number of phones in a store could be based on availability from AT&T which is what I believe you are saying. Considering that there were quite a few countries that launched the product all on the same day, I am not surprised that there would be a limited supply. However, I would agree that you wouldn't think the supply would be so limited that stores couldn't make it though the first day.
When you think about it though, there are a lot of contributing factors that would make this a reality. I don't know if anyone knows how many phones were available world wide for the launch. Regardless, someone had to pay for those phones for the relatively long period as inventories were built up for the launch. Even though credit was surely utilized, a tight cash flow situation could easily develop. There has been estimates that AT&T is paying APPLE 500.00+ for the phones and subsidizing the cost to the purchaser that commits to a 2 year plan. Well of course, that would be the vast majority of the phones. Because of that, I would imagine AT&T instructed the various store managers to exercise restraint when ordering and a to be accurate in forecasting how many would be sold. Probably some of them got it wrong.
It might be a good thing though. Sometimes a limited supply can help drive demand. Surely, you don't want a boom or bust situation where the manufacturers work furiously, before the phone is launched, to have enough phones for everyone who wants one, and then, having satisfied the demand, find orders fall off dramatically.
enyaw, could you offer a rough draft or outline for us to start with?
captainslog, most of the posters here probably are not aware of how much of the information that is published in newspapers, magazines and e-publications originate in a similar fashion to the way you suggest. I think your idea is a great one and I hope the others here take the time to try and understand what you are suggesting because I agree. It could be a great vehicle for increasing the awareness of IDCC.
Because of the huge financial well that companies like Nokia and Samsung have to work from, along with their powerful brand presence, they have a huge advantage over IDCC when it comes to public awareness and opinion. Your ideas offer a path to even the field for IDCC.
You mention 500 word articles. This board has so many individuals that have the ability to make contributions to this effort. The reply from loophole to the author who wrote the misleading article today is just one illustration of this point. His deep understanding of IDCC's history and his ability to make a strong point using that knowledge made his reply quite effective, IMO. Olddogs amazing ability to gather facts is just one other. While I personally don't view myself as one that would be particularly talented in contributing knowledge, I might be useful in helping polish the wording in an article written by someone who didn't feel that writing was their strong suit. I also have some office personnel that I could occasionally have provide some assistance.
How so you suggest we proceed?
Thanks loop. While I recognize there still is a good bit of tea leaf reading (it's all we have in many respects) I appreciate the discussion. My hope has been restored a good bit. I will admit the situation has caused me to face my addiction and re-evaluate whether I should have virtually all my retirement and free cash tied up in one investment. I have lightened my load a little and spread it out some.
Delete: I discovered the answer to my question already
Paheka, I think pretty much all the legal minds here are of the opinion IDCC was bound by confidentiality rules or agreements from releasing the Staff Report before they did. However, suppose they had let it out before. What makes you believe it wouldn't have dropped a ton then? Even with our belief that IDCC was in better shape than what we now might think, our belief has been based only on optimism. We did not know one way or the other what the staff report said and yet if we now feel we would have sold, had we known otherwise, then we GAMBLED that it was favorable. We have no one to blame for ourselves if we now think we would have done otherwise had we known.
I think most everyone here is very disappointed or upset but IMO, you need to quit looking for someone else to blame. What has happened to us is always an inherent possibility when you buy speculative stocks. Anyone who says they have not been "speculating" that IDCC is going to win is, IMO, in denial, at least to some degree. If it was a given that IDCC is going to win in the ITC, the price would already be much much higher and there would be very few shorts. The thing to do is accept where you are and decide what to do next.
croth, with all due respect; let's not forget that revlis went to the ITC trial and has reported back to us for no compensation. He is simply affording us his thoughts. Anyone reading them can take them for what they are worth. No need to come across with that sort of criticism, IMO
I haven't been able to access it my self all day croth.
All things are put into perspective!
A prayer is given to him and his family. Thank you for sharing that with us sjratty
After reading Loops post, I have the idea that IDCC's lawyer, who was the first to comment on the staff report,(as per revlis) mentioned that the staff found some things in favor of both parties, to make sure that we heard that before, and with, the staff's finding. Prior to that, the staff attorney had said "maybe" when asked whether he would make a statement. If IDCC's lawyer had waited to see if the staff's position was publicly stated, the staff might not have mentioned that the staff found some things favoring both parties and IDCC's lawyer might not have gotten the opportunity to share that important piece of news again, to offer a little balance to the statement "no violation". Now, wouldn't that have been even worse? I have the idea that IDCC planned to have their lawyer open up with his remark. Afterwards, if the staff attorney did state his position publicly, (to be expected, IMO) there was already the balance offered and some hope given to IDCC investors. With that scenario in mind, IDCC was already prepared to immediately release it's PR. IMO, that strategy almost certainly helped prevent a much worse drop in the share price.
That's my response to those that are complaining about how IDCC handled the news about the staff's position. I think IDCC did as good of a job as they could, given the circumstances. IDCC did not create the situation; they could only deal with it and I am satisfied wth their response. JMO
You're right, my mistake. I just went back and glanced though the agreement again. I need to read the thing carefully and in it's entirety. Thanks!
You may be right. I ws thinking that IDCC would get potential revenue for it's SlimChip technology but I guess that not a given.
That's what I was thinking. Could be some revenues for IDCC. I did buy some SPRD the other day as well. It would be a real boost for them if it was their chips.
Hmnn, who's chips do you suppose are in those phones revlis? How many players would be able to provide them, in your opinion?
"China Mobile opens bidding for 40,000 TD-SCDMA/CMMB handsets for Olympics"
dmiller, you're right I know. I try to ignore all the petty personality clashes that occur here but sometimes it amazes me how people, who are probably self controlled and restrained when in person, revert back to acting like children when they are insulated by the internet. He's not alone though.
It may be that mschere was too sick over figuring things wrong about the outcome and is either too sick or has no interest in posting. If that's the case, he is not alone, I'm sure, as it's apparent from the rest of the posts that everyone else did not see this coming.
Dang these rose colored glasses! I wish someone had told me how stupid they make me look!
I still am optimistic though. I'm going to continue to see this thing through. IDCC is not done and they have a lot of other positives ahead. My guess is that before Samsung is able to win using a FRAND defense, the judge WILL make them settle somehow with IDCC. I don't think he will let them use a win to continue not setting a royalty rate. This is something I feel pretty confident about.
Jim, I feel comfortable that IDCC did not release the news about the Staff Report before they did because they were prevented from doing so. If they could have released it, then Samsung could have released it. IF that were true, it only makes sense to me that Samsung would have let the news out because it would have aided them, via public and stockholder perception and pressure, in their negotiations with IDCC. NOK could have released it as well since it occurred before the to companies were separated in the ITC investigation
Sounds like they are trying to make IDCC cross license with them.
Bogliano has exrcised options as part of his compensation plan 3 times in the very recent past and apparently has sold none of it.
It may be they want to know how to spin things, depending on what happens.
Boy loop, I'll bet your head was really pounding!
$tock Weazel, I looked at your recent IHUB boards visited and see you have an interest in trading stocks. Most here at the IDCC board are primarily long term investors in IDCC and you might find that some of them have small interest in discussing IDCC with traders, if that's your only interest in it. However, if you can make some contributions yourself, even if it's just on understanding the trading patterns you see in IDC, you will eventually find some acceptance. You will also find that this board, while it has disagreements, is mostly serious about the discussions and doesn't tolerate much pot stirring etc..
As far as knowing about IDCC, I would first suggest visiting wirelessledger.com, a very good site that will give you a great run down on IDCC , it's history, technology and where it is right now. It's current situation and why it's stock is trading much more positively than the rest of the market is due to the fact that it is involved in an ITC (International Trade Commission) action against both Nokia and Samsung for non-payment of royalties for IDCC's technology. The activity and results involved up until now appear to put IDCC in a very favorable position to prevail. If they do, it will finally open up IDCC to collecting potentially hundreds of millions of dollars yearly from makers of equipment that utilize 3G and beyond, cellular technology. Obviously, IDCC's stock price would rise dramatically and would likely continue on an upward path for years into the future as cellular technology becomes more prevalent. Many think a settlement with Nokia or Samsung or both could be any day, before the case gets to trial with the ITC.
There is much more to the story but as I say, you can gleen all that from wrelessledger.com. Good luck.
olddog,
from your post, I would suppose it was possible that a settlement has been reached or is very close and we still may not see a change in the proceedings for a while. According to what you posted:
"A motion for termination by settlement shall
contain copies of the licensing or other settlement agreement, any
supplemental agreements, and a statement that there are no other
agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties
concerning the subject matter of the investigation.
Wouldn't you think that while an agreement in principle might be worked out, the details could take a while longer before they would be ready to present to the ALJ?
Wow revlis! What dimension is this guy from? He sounds like a college student I once knew that had to write a book report only he has one problem; he hasn't read the book! He decides, "no matter, the professor probably doesn't really read the book reports but rather he just figures that if you turned in a report, you must have read the book". He made up a story as best he could, based on what he had heard discussed in class. It worked and He got a passing grade. I got a chuckle reading the contents of the link you posted.
Hey Data, you got that. IFX up on takeover rumor! Good luck!
I seem to remember you doing pretty well with some IDCC that you bought somewhere in the...what was it;.. mid $16's? Great call!
I'll tell you Data, I have started to buy IFX several times based on the many things it has going positively for it and generally, it has looked like a good time. For some reason I have waited. I think I was just lucky there.
Goodb, I was very fortunate to sell all but my IDCC when I started worrying about the market last fall. Though the rest of the market had me pretty worried it would carry IDCC further down with it, I took most of what I had and put it in IDCC when it hit the bottom of a ten year price channel. The analyst had been been continuing to reaffirmation their higher price targets So I rolled the dice then. (I bought in around $19.50.) Of course, it dipped below that several times but it turned out to be a good move. I don't think SPRD is as solid of a move but there are some similarities. I think it's worth the gamble. Again, I hope I'm not wrong.
I too have been waiting and I'll agree you are smart in continuing to do so. I just like the way its hitting the bottom of the price channel. I've bought under similar circumstances before and have done very well. I've got stops in place to limit the downside hopefully.
Primarily because of its low price and upside potential. 1000 shares is only roughly $4500.00. It is a bit of a roll though. If I didn't like the chart and the earlier posted articles on SPRD's potential, I wouldn't do it
I think I read that SPRD also has $2.?? cash/share on hand as well. How low can it go?
I'll tell you, all the discussion about Spreadtrum, it's upcoming technology conference, it developmental work and expected dates of products release just prior to the Olympics has been too much for me. I had to roll the dice on owning some SPRD shares.
I sort of like the chart. It has had quite a drop but it is trading currently at the bottom of a price channel and there is a hell of a lot of upside potential. I hope this is a good move.
Chart link:
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=SPRD&p=D&yr=1&mn=4&dy=0&id=p25210283627
Hmnn. I just clicked on the link for the chart and it does not show the trend lines that show the price channel. However, for those that aren't familiar with Stockcharts. go to the bottom of the chart and click on "annotate". A copy of the chart will pop up and you can draw your own trend lines. Draw a line stretching beyond the $17 peak and the later $9.79 peak. You can copy that line and drag it to the bottom and you will see that the initial low and the low of today make a parallel line to the top one.