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.
Spencer-I don't see where it says tier 1 3g licenses in 2007.
Revlis-You mentioned that you believe there is a high probability of signing a tier 1 by Jan 15 2008.Are you making this assumption based upon the bonus date? If this is so,it would be a very sad commentary on our management's credibility,since Merritt claims that he could do the deals now but at a price that doesn't reflect our true value.What makes you think that the companies you mentioned are going to rush to our doorstep by Jan 15 2008,to pay the price that we are asking?Conversely,if we are willing to cut the price in order to meet a bonus deadline,I imagine that our institutional owners will have something to say,possibly with legal action.JMO,but I can't see putting a whole lot of credence in the Jan 15 2008 date playing a major part in signing a tier 1 oem.
Any technicians out there with support price and breakthroughs? tia
Anyone know whether there will be a hold period for those that have bought IDCCD shares in order to be converted back to IDCC-hope not.tia
IMO-FRAND was established as a legal maneuver by the large oems and essential patent holders on the 3g standards board to ensure that their relative competitive situations stayed as they were.For this reason,I don't see any way nok will license with idcc until after it reaches a deal with qcom and the rest of the MENS club has negotiated a deal with IDCC.I think that management realized that SAM was the most vulnerable of the big four and that the chances of getting a reasonable rate in a reasonable amount of time were the greatest with SAM.Since nobody was going to voluntarily put themselves in an uncompetitive position,it became necessary to sue for infringement and begin ITC proceedings.Right on cue,SAM countersues IDCC under FRAND rights.This seems to be the blueprint that IDCC is being forced to follow to assert its patent rights and unfortunately this process is lengthy and costly.SAM also is in no hurry to sign for 3g,as I'm sure they would like to see where qcom/nok ends up and if nok is successful in knocking out any of our declared essential patents.Bottom line,it is and has always been about RATES,with all the other legal crap being a potshot at knocking down the number of patents deemed essential or demeaning the value of the patents that everyone knows are essential.When all is said and done,there is no way that we will get the same rate from the big four as we are now getting from those that didn't contribute essential ipr to the standards and until we are able to play the cross licensing game,no one is really interested in what we think our ipr is worth.We will have to give those that contributed, some kind of relative concession for their patents.Other than finally getting our 2g money from Sam,the rest of this year looks pretty bleak.I hope that I am missing some catalyst that will speed up this unbelievably long process and finally allow us to execute our business plan.gltal.
Any tech savy people-what is it about the 4 patents that sam and nok are attacking that could possibly make us vulnerable?- tia
mschere-While I'd like to see either happen soon,I can't see any incentive for either of those companies to put themselves at a relative disadvantage,when they can conveniently hide behind the FRAND defense,and string out the process another 2 years at least.This is the flaw in our business plan and the reason I believe mgmt has taken SAM to the ITC for an injunction.The only thing these big oem's understand is when their competitive position is threatened-hopefully the Broadcom/Qcom will stand and then real negotiations towards a compromise will finally happen.If the ITC rules in our favor,it appears that April 08 is the approximate time when an initial decision will become known and the actual injunction due to begin 60 days later-however the President can overturn(imo-unlikely,since US company vs foreign co.)and SAM,I believe can still appeal.Meanwhile,infringement proceedings and the FRAND question are on hold.Are we going to have to go thru this process,one at a time,over the next 3-5 years to finally get our due in 3g,or is their some event that isn't apparent,that will speed up the process,and bring the infringers to justice?Since it is unlikely that there will ever be a 3rd party established with the agreed upon power to set FRAND rates in a timely fashion,we are stuck dealing with these companies one on one,spending a boatload on attornies fees,while our stock becomes dead money,and very susceptible to a buyout at a rate lower than we all have hoped for,but will look very appetizing to our institutional holders.Sorry for venting,but this whole charade of FRAND,has got to be the biggest FRAUD ever conceived of,to bilk patent holders out of their due.
Does anyone know what the earliest date is,that the ITC can issue an injunction against SAM and if this injunction is issued,the earliest date it could actually take effect? tia.
Revlis-No, it's the ins. loss that I believe mgmt said we would take in its entirety 2nd qtr-16+ mil.
Just hope we get news that will avert reporting a 2nd qtr loss. We all know that it is a one time scenario,but you know what the headlines will look like and the market will surely take us down. The one yr anniversary of the PJ slaughter is also looming-and unfortunately they were right when they said we were handcuffed in signing any new 3g deals.We need that 2g money from Sam to turn things around,because if we have a second half like the first half of 2007 so far,institutions won't be able to keep us from visiting the 20's again.Here's hoping that this latest runup has some basis to it-like a new deal announced.gltal
2 questions: Will the ITC action finally put an end to the qcom indemnification defense that SAM etal seems to hide behind? Also,if qcom did buy out IDCC,would SAM's financial obligations disappear? Finally,nokiashill-you don't have to respond with "it will never happen."TIA.
Either there is one helluva rumor out there or someone is initiating coverage.
Is it true that the acronym FRAND was developed when the MENS club got together to set up their goals to deal with Qcom and IDCC for 3g? Their goals were to set up a concept that would allow them to Formulate,Reduce, And Negate Demands(FRAND) of the dynamic duo-but the acronym would have to stand for something far more nebulous or it wouldn't fly.How about the old business ethics 101-to get everybody to agree to do business on a Fair,Reasonable,And Non Discriminatory basis.To borrow a word from the Guinness commercials-BRILLIANT! On a more serious note,the whole ballgame is FRAND and always was.Don't think for one moment that the MENS club really believes that IDCC doesn't have essential patented technology.They are only trying to reduce the number and relative signifcance of that technonlogy,while a method is figured out to set a rate that gives credit to other patent holders of essential tecnology.The rates charged to companies that don't have their own R&D will NOT be a factor(whizzeresq-in response to your second to last sentence in post 180497).At some point,I wouldn't be surprised if the cross licensing formula is used as a starting point to set rates among the companies that have declared essentiality.Our decision to produce a chip would fit in with this concept.Although I think that this latest salvo with the ITC was necessary,I agree with others here that any injunction will not actually happen.I'm hoping that qcom and nok can come to terms soon and that a clear formula is established for FRAND. JMO
loop-It appears more and more that the change in direction came down to:play the cross license game to gain entry to the tier one group, or litigate.The cross license game should bring quicker results with reduced(from best case scenario)net percentages,but without all the uncertainties of litigation,and the time factor,that would all but kill this stock.IMO-Management has made a crucial and smart decision to position IDCC as a flexible company that offers multiple solutions to the wireless market as well as a company that can monetize its assets in more than one way.I'll probably get some more PM's from the lunatic fringe this evening,but it is clear to me that infringement litigation with a tier one oem is an end game scenario and that management has made a statement that a different game can be played by this company.gltal
This board needs to become more tolerant of viewpoints that don't coincide with the pie in the sky group lead by Mschere and his minions.Anyone who has a different point of view is chastised as having an agenda,when in fact, the reasoning, that under every rock there is a royalty bearing scenario for IDCC,is just plain wishful thinking.The connect the dots game is getting exhausting-like playing the six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon game.Each to his own as far as processing all the possibilities,but usually the simplest solution to problems come to fruition and not everyone who follows this board should be painted as negative towards IDCC if they don't share the conclusions of Marvin and his Minions.imo
Been kicking back on granpda's cough medecine there arty-even your writing is slurred-your comments have to be the most worthless posts on ihub.
The shorts would have a field day with an infringement suit against nok-take away any chance of 3g revenues from the top gun for 2-3 years and everyone else backing off till that is settled.No way-our management is smarter than that-your way would play right into nok/etals hands and we would be dead money for quite a while.Keep your eye on nok/qcom, because that is where the real game is being played,and I believe we will benefit from it.Just because I see it differently from your sue everyone mentality,you make me,in your bizarre logic, a short seller(never shorted a stock in my life).
Arthritis-I'm sure you are a nice guy and mean well for IDCC,but you can't take every idea from posters here that you disagree with and turn it around that the poster is some how trying to bring down the company.I don't know how many times that I have to tell you,IDCC has been the greatest investment of my life-and I am still long,just not as many shares as before.We will prevail in some fashion,it is my opinion that now is not the time for infringement lawsuits,and contrary to your belief,announcement of lawsuits would NOT be looked upon favorably by wall street.Good Luck!
Common sense tells me that qcom didn't have to litigate for every tier 1 license they have,nor did any other major 3g player have to go thru the courts to get licenses.Litigation is part of the game NOT the whole game as you seem to think.
L2V-What in the world are you talkin about? I used to think that you had some reasoning skills,but now you've got me wondering,with some of these off the wall rants recently.When you start resembling arthritis in your posting,maybe it is time to step back and reassess.Product is going to be ready for interoperability testing maybe in the 4th qtr,and then has to be marketed against stiff competition.More litigation is the last resort,I hope,because all that ever happens is a negotiated settlement,after years of needless costs.My hope is that FRAND will somehow be defined in the qcom/nok battle and that we can negotiate licenses with the remaining tier 1 companies based upon a guideline that is deemed reasonable for all.jmo
Arthritis-Actually, I hope you are wrong and that we don't have to go the litigation route to get what we rightfully deserve.When you have to project out 2-3 years for litigation to play out,a whole new set of variables can be introduced that changes the entire landscape.I've ridden this stock for 7 years,which is minor in time from what some of you have endured,but this game is getting old.There has to be some catalyst that maybe we don't see, that will break this stalemate without infringement suits.I at least sure hope so,and maybe the qcom/nok scenario will be the breakthru we need to negotiate rather than litigate for our licenses.gltal
My3sons-What worries me is that our tier 2 licensees apparently went nowhere from 2005 to 2006 in increasing our revenues, which is a little odd unless they are trading market share with each other.We clearly need to break into the tier 1 market and without lengthy litigation or this puppy is going to have a hard time sustaining prices in the 30's with a projected 40 PE.jmo
Analysts estimates of revenues by quarter for 2007 have me baffled.Which quarter are we supposed to recognize LG and for how much? I was under the impression that we were to receive $95 mil the first quarter 07 and 08 to fulfill the remaining balance from the $285 mil license,but I think I remember something about accounting for $57 mil per year over the 5 year agreement.Can anyone verify this and then explain where these analysts account for the LG revenues.tia
Danny-Thanks for your info.Looking at 2007,in light of the first qtr guidance,and seeing that the tier 2 licenses recurring revenue from 2005 and 2006 remained about the same,the immediate prospects for recouping the $25 mil in lost revenues from nok,don't look too promising-at least in the first half of the year.Meanwhile,if I heard correctly,our expenses are going to increase in the first quarter.We will eventually get the 2g Sam money,but no guarantees of a 3g license attached.With the qcom/nok scenario still to be played out,I'm trying to see why GS most likely doesn't see this as dead money for 2007.I'm confident that they see something very positive happening and relatively soon to justify that 59% increase.I could be making too much of their position and your perspective is valued,but I think there just might be something that they see short term that isn't apparent to us.jmo
Danny-From your experience what does a firm like GS do,with a position that is virtually impossible to unwind in a low volume stock like IDCC,if they decide the company can't deliver.I assume they have an exit strategy and would need to broker a deal on the side, if things turned sour.The fact that GS increased their position by 59% in the 4th qtr at an average cost probably in the low 30's,makes me curious what they saw at that time,to put themselves at the top of the heap of institutional investors.Contrary to the opinions on this board,that this is a long term play,I believe that the 59% increase in one quarter represents, more than likely, an event that they feel pretty confident is going to play out short term.Is my reasoning correct,that normally, accumulation for a long term play would be more spread out rather than a large percentage increase in a short period of time? Goldman's is a pretty savy group, and I can't see them boxing themselves in,with little way out,for a long term play out to 2011.Something is up here and I'm betting that this latest increase by Goldman's will pay off in 2007.jmo
C'mon guys,you are asking questions that you know can't be answered, just to make the company look bad-what is your agenda anyway? LOL-On a more serious note,this week should give us some answers as to the effect of institutional ownership,our management's handling of a disappointing quarter by pre-announcing,and the buyback, in stemming the tide against any short attacks or shenanigans by analysts.We saw a $2+ drop on the pre announcement in early December,followed by SK announcement and increased buyback, to bring the stock back to this level.Lately, we've been hanging on to near 7 year highs,with paltry volume,and no news.Going into Wednesday's 4th quarter and year end announcement, under these circumstances,in the past would have spelled a major down move.This will be a good test for the strength of ownership that we now have, and also for the strategy that management employed to diffuse a disappointing quarter,while hopefully pointing to good things to come.The traders have had their way in the past,but I think we may be pleasantly surprised by the market's reaction on Wed.jmo
bulldzr-Let me get this straight-First, I'm doubted as being an actual shareholder and when I tell the truth(which I now regret)about how great this investment has been for me,I then get accused of having an ego problem and a hidden agenda.Now,I'm accused of asking questions that are too tough to answer and that the real reason I'm asking those questions is to embarass the company and cast a negative pall over this board.What are you smokin? When a simple question about what actual Infineon chips have our software in them gets too tough, then something is wrong.I'm not a blind faith investor like you(and that is your privelege to play it as you wish)and I will continue to ask questions when I don't understand something and may even change my mind when new facts are brought to light.To answer your accusation,the questions I asked are very legitimate and should be answerable by the company so that we don't make leaps in judgement when a story comes out conjecturing that Samsung will be using Infineon chips and that they may have IDCC software in them and that therefore Sam has to have a 3g license with IDCC.I hope we will have an announcement soon that confirms that our software is in the chip used by Sam,but I still doubt that this scenario will autmotically require a 3g license with IDCC.I also hope that the company will give specifics as to which chips we will get paid for and how much per chip.I promise that when I ask any more questions,I will pause and consider whether they are too tough to answer.lol
Mschere-At least put the remark about $40 in context to the share price of $17.20 soon to go down to high 16's when the discussion took place-re rumor of qcom offer.As for my ownership past and present in IDDC,sounds like you don't believe me or does it irritate you that someone could make that much money in IDCC and not always see eye to eye with your observations and thinking?
I haven't made one mention of buyout today and you people are jumpin down my throat-exactly what was it that I posted today that is bugging you? I asked legitimate questions and have gotten no answers except a partial from danny re gsamg.The paranoia here is amazing and the inability to deal with any thought that might be contrary or a little different smacks of tunnel vision.Look at paragraph 4 in eetimes.com article posted by mschere today-mergers and acquisitions are a real part of the equation whether you approve or not.Don't bother with the comeback that I have tunnel vision as well-lol.
Wow L2v-Get a grip buddy-I always respected you for your reasoning ability,but you have gone off the deep end with this inquiry.Anyone with a different perspective from yours is all of a sudden the boogy-man with some hidden agenda.Turn off your radar and look at my comments for what they are:simply trying to figure out where we are headed with this investment.
Danny-If I/institution sign up to have money managed by GSAMG and request that some of the money be invested in IDCC would the purchase show up as GMSAG?
C'mon mschere,don't stoop to that level,answer the questions if you can-please.
Another question:Does anyone have info on when Goldman Sachs Asset Management Group first took a position in IDCC and for how many shares? Also would like to know many times they increased their position till now.If GSAMG were making those purchases for an institution or wealthy individual or even a hedge fund,would this information have to be divulged to IDCC or anyone else? tia
Is IDCC software imbedded in all S-Gold series chips by Infineon,or just certain ones? Why can't the company specify which Infineon chips they will be paid on? Also,is the chip that IDCC is having manufactured and that is to be ready for interoperability testing late this summer,going to be in competition with any of the current Infineon chips? Since IDCC licensed for Infineon's 2g layer 1 technology, I imagine that Infineon has a piece of the action on IDCC's initial chip venture.I am trying to figure out why, for starters, Samsung would put themselves at a competitive disadvantage(margin wise)by signing a "bundled" 3g license with IDCC,when they can use only the technology they deem necessary at this point, thru an Infineon chip.I am still looking for that catalyst(without litigation)that will produce the necessity for the remaining tier 1 oems to license 3g with IDCC.It seems that IDCC feels that their chip will be that necessity and then the "entire IDCC solution" will be offered in a license.If this is the case,then don't expect any tier 1 licenses this year,but long term, if the chip is successful,significant revenues will be generated.This is my conclusion only and from an admitted tech idiot.
ellismd-I realize that the 2 are separate and I am sure you are correct that sam would get some concession,but a comment earlier by revlis made it sound that sam would HAVE to license with IDCC in order to utilize Infineon's technology that contained IDCC ipr.Maybe this is the back door approach to getting royalties from those that don't seem to want to license the whole program.
Question:If Sam enters into an agreement with Infineon for its'product that incorporates IDCC technology and Infineon pays IDCC a portion of that agreement,why would Sam have to license that technology separetly with IDCC and pay again?
bulldzr-I,for one,think the board is far better now than in the past, because the views are more diverse and informative.I totally appreciate mschere for his tireless efforts to keep us all informed on the industry and possible connections to IDCC.I also aprreciate those that take me to task and disagree with my thoughts,especially when the retort is well thought out and reasoned.This all makes me a better investor,(instead of hearing only one side and a constant barrage of cheerleading)I can read views that contain something that I may not have considered.We are at the crossroads of 3g licensing, with the have nots(no r&d of their own to cross license)lined up on one side and signing 3g licenses with IDCC,while on the other side are the have's-still playing hardball and not wanting to let a small r&d firm cut their margins,while their royalties would create a potential behemoth for future g's.So how will the game play out(a)the have's will voluntarily sign 3g with IDCC(b)some event will act as a catalyst to require the have's to sign-ie Infineon news,or tie in to China(c)the have's will continue to thumb their nose at IDCC,while attacking essentiality claims to reduce any potential rate(d)the have's bait IDCC into infringement litigation,which will stifle revenue projections for a long time while increasing costs to the company(e)friendly takeover of IDCC that allows the status quo for the have's in cross licensing.Would love to hear some other takes on this dilemma,because I believe that the only REAL reason we don't have the remaining majors signed is because those powers see a major threat to their future profitability,if they become the fuel that creates another qcom.The line has been drawn,and these are very interesting times for IDCC-keep the info and dialogue coming,even the criticism,except for the mindless retorts that occaisionally appear without any reason to back up their opinion.Infineon may be our catalyst to bust out Sam-let's hope for more good news to come.jmo
So,let me understand institutional investors-they don't invest in takeover candidates? The bottom line is always the same-upside/downside risk with time parameter.Because institutions invest in a particular stock doesn't mean their analysis is correct or that their price targets will be achieved,but I guarantee that they will make adjustments along the way and that they are disciplined with a sell parameter.Somehow we've made a jump in logic that IDCC has become a CORE holding for the institutions listed-how do you know that? Also,why are we any closer to signing the remaining major oems and what is the catalyst that will make these companies finally ink a contract?If your answer is infringement litigation,then look out below.I wish that is was all as simple as Hookrider's double/split/double scenario,and everyone would be happy,but I think that we will all find out soon which way this whole thing will be going-qcom/nok will set the stage.There is no way that institutions will sit on dead money if infringement litigation is needed,but I also feel that they know that another alternative to litigation is selling the company.Institutions will look at what/if scenarios for revenues going forward and assign probabilities to certain events.The assumption on this site is that the most likely event is the near term signing of sam and/or nok,but if it becomes clear that the end to the stall game is nowhere in sight,the pressure to monetize assets in a different way will be brought by these institutions.Either way,the instituitions see a nice return-stay tuned,this game is getting very interesting.jmo
Forget about poison pills-will not come into play.Any buyout will be negotiated and agreed upon and I believe will be beneficial to both parties.An interesting question to throw out on a long weekend-HOW MANY HERE WOULD TAKE $70/SHARE-basically a double from today's price-if it was offered now? From some commentaries today and in the past it seems some here would not feel that it was a fair offer,because they believe that the company will be worth $130-150 in 3-4 years.Basically,the opportunity cost of money has not been factored in their judgement and an if/come scenario seems to have clouded their thinking.If you honestly believe that our board and majority shareholders would turn down $70 today to maybe get $140 in 3 to 4 years,based upon best case scenario projections,you need to get your head examined.A fairness opinion would be laughed at,but I'll bet there will be those here that think $70 today is too cheap.By the way, I don't have any agenda, as some here have implied.This company has made me a ton of money-basically between a triple and quadruple and in fair disclosure I once owned 93,400 shares but now am holding 10,000 shares as a proud multi-Interdigitalionaire.My basic strategy is to look for doubles in a reasonable time frame.I still believe this company was made to be sold in 3g and that we are approaching the perfect time when a fair offer could come our way and make sense to our shareholders as well to a large company either already in wireless or about to make an entrance.jmo
If IDCC achieves what Merritt has laid out as goals by 2010 and the numbers he projects are valid,what company's margins are likely to suffer from a larger,stronger,IDCC pumping out patents for 4g etc?QCOM doesn't need or want a mirror image of itself cutting into its' margins and possibly inventing a killer app that could knock it off its'pedestal.Sometimes it's better to knock out your competition before it gets a foothold in your market and becomes even more expensive.I don't know any more than you do,but at least I gave some reasons why it makes sense for QCOM to purchase IDCC.Saying an event will never happen without some reasoning,is a worthless statement,which I guess is par for the course,judging by most of your commentaries here.Remember, QCOM became what it is today,in part because it was able to hoodwink IDCC into taking $5 million for its' contribution to cdma-the point being,that QCOM knows that IDCC is the real deal and could easily become a major threat to its' margins going forward,while being very capable of inventing a major breakthru that would put QCOM at a disadvantage.QCOM could very well rue the day that it didn't make a run at IDCC.JMO