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.
Mickey, Qualcomm has thousands of the best engineers in the business. They can hire more whenever they feel the need. IDCC's IPR may be attractive to device manufacturers who need defensive and offensive patents, but that excludes Qualcomm.
Anonymous sources? Like Miller said, there's no credible evidence.
Cash was never an issue for Qualcomm. Including their offshore cash, they have $20 bil - before the spectrum money. There is virtually no chance they will buy IDCC, because they can't monetize those additional patents.
If memory serves me right, Olddog, they were power saving chipset software patents, that Broadcom at that time was a NPE as to. Three patents were adjudged by a Federal jury to have been wilfully infringed, an Injunction against most Qualcomm 3G chipsets was issued, and on appeal the CAFC upheld infringement of two of the patents, and the Injunction. It was a bloody mess for Qualcomm, who made multiple blunders during the litigation, and nearly cost them their business.
Do not underestimate the importance of patents that are non-essential to any standard, and not subject to FRAND licensing requirements. It was several such patents that resulted in Broadcom extracting nearly $1 bil from Qualcomm, while bludgeoning the latter with several years of stock depressing headlines.
Perhaps uncertainty in the post-Jobs era, and with Europe and the world economy, given their huge market cap, are the far more logical explanations.
Can't file a 4G case against Apple, as they don't yet sell any LTE nor WiMAX devices.
How does it bode for the IDCC per unit license with HTC?
That was last Wednesday, but was adjourned until today.
You're kidding yourself, but not the market. IDCC and QCOM were both small companies in the early 1990's, but only one has remained so.Don't buy into the rationalization that Irwin Jacobs was a better salesman.Great message board folklore, but revisionist history.
You must be joking. You believe Janet breached her professional and legal duties, and made discreet disclosures to you of non-public information, that created an ethical obligation of yours to keep such information between the two of you?
How in the world can a company's simply making public disclosure of its intention to "explore strategic alternatives", create a cause of action for fraud or other actionable misconduct?
So you expect the company, or the market, to insure you against your poor decision making? Investing and trading are for grown-ups. No one forces you to buy, hold, or sell, and group think is no substitute for fact based analysis.
Passthrough rights? Sure.
You're connecting the wrong dots. Intel is reorganizing wireless, because they're struggling against ARM processors for handset slots. It has nothing to do with IDCC.
Service providers don't need a license. The infrastructure and device sellers do.
For those who claimed the delay in declaring a dividend was due to an imminent sale of the company, what should we infer from tonight's dividend declaration?
Perfect on all points - i.e., 100% wrong.
Lack of clairvoyance, and greed, just like you.
The bag I'm holding, Mickey, contains only shares of IDCC. I assign a zero chance of the company being sold for anywhere close to your rose colored numbers, if they are able to sell at all. I also don't expect their 4G licensing to be more than modestly better than their 3G. Selling the IPR is the best opportunity we have for this to end well.Anything over $75/share will be a great deal.
Oh, here we go again. Didn't 3G licensing teach you anything about the "engine and transmission"? Fool me twice, shame on me.
It represents the triumph of hope, over experience.
This will be no different than 3G licensing, to the extent that self-declared numbers of purportedly "essential" patents have little to do with the commercial importance and market value of a given portfolio.
Why only 3.5%, Mickey? Why not 35%? Then you could really pump some great numbers.
You want another "substantial progress" statement, like the one they made about their negotiations with Nokia? How'd that work for you?
They have publicly stated what they're trying to do. Negotiations must be conducted in private, to be effective. You'll next hear from the company about the process, when they're ready to recommend an offer to the BOD, when the CAFC announces a decision, or when they abandon efforts to sell the company, not before.
All that changes with Qualcomm's integrated 2/G/3G/4G world baseband on the 28 nm process node, currently in the hands of customers, and available to consumers beginning early 2012. Apple will have, therefore, a 2012 woldphone with LTE, small, integrated, and power efficient.
I blame it on HTC's downward guidance and Tero's resultant hit piece today. Don't care about your trading algorithm. Don't bother answering, because before you found this place, it was a discussion board for wireless business. Have at it.
Cramer had a Fibonacci expert on yesterday,Carolyn Boroden, who analyzed the QCOM chart and predicted a bullish 17% upside from here. Is it the math, or the mathematician? Doesn't matter. If the market rallies, so will QCOM, because its fundamental growth story is intact. If the market sucks, so will QCOM.
Jim, Qualcomm is listed #2 to Cisco in the category of "Computer/Internet Equipment", with a pipeline power rating of 3170.
If Europe or other geopolitical/macro events cause global markets to collapse, then QCOM will be crushed by de-risking strategies with the rest, though not as badly as most.If not, their fundamental tailwinds, as to which you are admittedly ignorant, will assure market outperformance for at least the next year. I implore you to short the piss out of it, while I am admittedly long. I'm betting my 14 years of assiduously following their business, against your subjective interpretation of their chart. Since you have just recently begun posting your technical predictions on various iHub message boards I follow, you obviously fancy yourself as a technical maven. Drop by again every 6 months, and let us know how your short to the 30's is going, wontcha?
QCOM is no SIRI. Follow your chart, follow your heart, and have the courage of your self-promoting convictions.
Cool. I hope you short the piss out of it. You'll deserve the "rewards" coming your way, sad to say.
FRAND telecom lawsuits have been filed, though I'm unaware of any that has proceeded to judgment. Obviously, if bilateral negotiations (with or without litigation) fail to yield resolution, some mechanism must exist to establish it in a given case.If not the judicial process, what would that mechanism be? Nokia took Qualcomm to the day of trial, in the Delaware Chancery Court, before a global settlement was achieved. That trial would have been the first to judicially determine FRAND 2G/3G/4G between two patent holders,that I know of.
Caveat: I have done no litigation search on the subject.
FRAND is determined generally through bilateral negotiations. When those are unsuccessful, FRAND rates are set through litigation. You are way ahead of the EC process, as it's in the most preliminary of stages, and probably will never make it to the formal complaint stage. After years of Investigating Qualcomm, based upon specific and coordinated complaints from Nokia, Ericsson, Broadcom, Panasonic, and a couple of others, the EC declined to file a formal complaint. The same is likely to occur in this preliminary inquiry, opened sua sponte by the EC.
The answer is unquestionably, "no". That's not how appellate courts function.
Isn't it a bit grandiose to address a message board post, "To All"? This is an open forum, where every public post can be read, passed over, or ignored, by any iHub member who chooses.
$12-$15 bil, for a company with a market cap of $2 bil?
Oh, my.
I wonder why they have been unable to license Foxconn. They couldn't really sue for leverage while Infineon was the sole baseband supplier for Apple, but as Infineon is phased out that may be plausible.
Has IDCC licensed Foxconn?
Apple needed to sign a license with IDCC, because IDCC was inside the Infineon basebands Apple intended to use. The revenues of InterDigital don't lie about the value of that license, nor does the lack of 10% disclosure.