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.
When there is money...give the execs money not options. Options are proving to be costly from all respects. We have seen that in the past and even now. If the options are given instead of salary, at this point it seems like a bad move...probably this perception is the outcome of temporary frustration because of insider actions and associated stock price movements. But, IMHO, options grants are sometimes working against shareholders interests.
Whatever the phrase "Vested Interest" means?
-vg_future
As hoboso_17 mentioned on Yahoo board, could this amount be from a royalty rate increase?
From IDCC news release
InterDigital Communications Corp. raised its fourth-quarter and year results based on higher-than-expected royalties received after it released preliminary figures.
So, it could be not just from more sales..it couls also be from royalty rate increase. If so, any insights from the learned ones on the board as to what is the possibility of a such a happening, which company had such a clause in the licensing agreement, what might have triggered it and what will it trigger.
Thanks!
-vg_future
boogie, it is a good news. No doubt about it. But the thing is, could they have released the news during morning...or is there a specific reason for the late release after the close of the market. Does it mean they could get the accounting and all other paper work done by that time...or does it have any other significance? Just curious...could something else be coming out on Monday....fingers crossed.
Long and Strong. Waiting for an excellent opening on Monday.
-vg_future
rmarchma, Thanks for the info.
My worries are now put to rest.
-vg_future
Ken..Thanks! I thought we teamed up with just Siemens for BCDMA.
That explains.
-vg_future
Mshere or Rmarchma, Question regarding MFL.
If Sharp's agreement has a clause which will exclude them from getting a MFL rate since they were never in a strategic partnership, we will really be saved. But, how did Samsung get the MFL clause...dis they ever had any strategic alliance with IDCC?
Thanks for your response.
-vg_future
JimLur..I read a Conspiracy Theory on this board regarding the 4th quarter's earnings date. The Feb 10th earnings date was initially posted back in December and at that point the trial delay has not showed up on the NEWS radar yet. Did someone have prior knowledge (before it was announced) of the trial delay back in December itself?
Whether the damage has been done or not...to make it more professional, IDCC can demand a better professional service from the consulting firm.
I am not trying to dig this matter further....so, if you consider this discussion is of no use, please don't respond. I will consider this closed.
Thanks!
Long and Strong
-vg_future
JimLur..Honest mistake? Maybe...because it conincided with the original trial date...but don't you think that just pushing the responsibility of these kind of errors on to a consulting firm that manages the site is weird. Can't they take any action against the consulting firm and make them take the responsibility and pay for it? Don't they have any proof reading facility?
Long and Strong.
-vg_future
TFWG Thanks for the info! I appreciate it. EOM
MSCHERE--Thanks for the info. So, any such accrued royalty can be paid as one time payment or in installments to IDCC. But, what does Nokia do? Does it have to restate it's past earnings or they already have a provision for this?
Thanks again.
-vg_future
To All...Question regarding Nokia payment accrual.
Probably this was discussed here already..if so, please direct me to that post. As per my understanding from the posts on this board, IDCC either will get a one time huge payment or a payment over installments for all the amount due since Jan, 2002 when Nokia and IDCC agree on a rate. How does this payment get recognized for NOK? Do they already have some provisions for this or they have restate their earnings for all the past quarters starting from Jan, 2002? If they restate their earnings and if this back payment is significant, will it be right to say NOK might have to show loss in quarters that they already showed profit for?
Thanks, in advance, for all responses.
-vg_future
Dishfan--Thanks for the info. Long and stronger then ever. EOM
zitboy_rev_11_3.....I thought IFX is the partner for whatever they are demonstrating next week in France. I am not that qualified to comment on this...but I thought I read it here on this board (from the CC stuff or the QA that followed it).
But, whatever it is or whoever it is, I can't wait till next week to hear the developments.
Good luck to all
vg_future
All--with all the speculation around the so called Agreed Order (or a sealed order that might have supposedly closed the 2g dispute between IDCC-ERICY) on this board, I was wondering that probably the settlement rumor before the trial delay announcement might as well have some strength to it. What I am trying to say is...it might not be just some pump and dump strategy by some party which had the knowledge about the trial delay...It Could Be Genuine. And even Micky's rumor might also have some validity.
All IMHO.
Only Time Will Tell.
-vg_future
Crushed results....any ideas? Looking for an excellent morning.
Good luck to all.
-vg_future
Mshere...Micky...where did the 5 billion dollar figure come from? I thought the Reuters News said
"If InterDigital wins the case, Ericsson could face payments of tens of billions of crowns, the daily reported."
What is the conversion rate for Swedish crowns to dollars.
Thanks for your replies in advance.
Again, IMHO, the News release was very unprofessional and looked more like a mandatory one to cover their backs...well, anyway, time will tell.
-vg_future
all--ERICY's press release is an attempt to down play the whole issue. IMO. But they are doing it in a unprofessional way. How could they no tthe reason for the delay. Either it has to be at the parties' request or judge's decision. How difficult can that be...unless the release is a mandatory release that ERICY had to put together. Either they are very good in doing so...or they really sucked at it. IMO.
They mentionef IDCC's loss to MOT as a shelter....so, IDCC can come out with a release and can mention ERICY's loss to HRS to show the potential.
That's my feeling.
Good luck to all in today's press battle...if ther would be any.
-vg_future
OT- ams13sag...that's what is happening all these years...but, since we are at a crucial junction now, I am hoping that we get to taste our share of goodies.
-vg_future
ams13sag---whether options or shares...I was pointing at the possibility of they being issued because of a positive development in the case.
I again say the samething....hope is beautiful...I hold it dearly forever.
-vg_future
Option Grant...Positive.
IMO, this is a positive sign. Without questioning whether the option grants are good or bad for the company, I personaaly think that Harry getting options at this point might hint positive happenings in the case. Wasn't he one of the guys who has access, in a decision making capacity, to the case.
-vg_future
Form 4..Good News! Cool. Hope this doesn't result in a silent period. I guess everyone is very much ready for the long due News from KOP.
Good Luck to all.
-vg_future
JimLur..Doesn't this name clash with an existing board? Just to avoid confusion..try another name (something like
IDCC Breakroom..or something else).
We are all already very busy with one infringement case....do we have time and energy for another...just kidding.
Good idea for OTs.
Long and Strong.
-vg_future
wireless..THANKS! EOM
Does this mean that he dropped the coverage just because he has left RTX and nothing more than that. He might as well start the coverage at his place with a higher target...who knows!!!??
Hope is eternal.
-vg_future
JimLur..if you think that my message 6881 causes any problem, please delete it. Sorry for any inconvenience.
vg_future
Mickey..your ideas on the 4th quarter results release date.
If this is going to stir up unwanted discussions, I request JimLur to remove this post immediately.
Is there any significance of the date being the very next day after the original trial date?
As per Mshere's post, 2/11 was put on IDCC website in the first week of December (then the trial was not postponed)...later on they removed it calling it a mistake by web manager or whoever it is that manages the website. Does this mean that they knew about the trial delay back in December itself. This could mean that they might have agreed with ERICY, in principle, that they will be no trial at all or atleast not on Feb 10th. What is your opinion?
If this has been already discussed on this board, please can someone point me to that message chain.
Long and steady win the race.
Thanks!
vg_future
Mshere-- Little confused..what do you mean by your post 6538.
-vg_future
Samsung--I thought IDCC mentioned 100 million in the very begining of 2002...so, do you think they could have included 2002 sales in the arbitration claim?
-vg_future
Emerald presentation. Were there similar Press releases for Emerald presentation in the past? I guess I am reading too much into everything.
-vg_future
Mshere- What I am trying to say is that IDCC might take a decision (hopefully) keeping in view the interests of all shareholders, but fearing that they might settle for something less. I sure hope the aberrations that you mentioned are just temporary. I really wish that all these hedging funds and shorts learn a lesson for their lifetime (emotions speaking...sorry). I never supported management's option grants and stock sales. Whenever they sell, the stock sheds millions of market cap worth...I think we can be better off if they take salary rather than these options when there is more than 100 million in cash with the company. Anyway, that is my personal opinion and stand on the option grants.
Hoping to see a bright future..
-vg_future
Mschere -- It is very unfortunate that we are in a situation where we have to settle the case and move on to greener pastures. If IDCC takes anything less than what it is entitled to, then it will give every damn infringer an incentive to infringe and try it out. I also understand that this settlement is very crucial to us in the bigger picture and future revenues, but the party that is posing to make peace (probably ERICY as per the Yahoo mail) should also come to the table with right intentions and something to give that will be acceptable to the opponent.
I am not proposing IDCC should play the stubborn role here, but only feeling bad that IDCC might have to settle to something low in spite of getting bullied around.
-vg_future
Ellismd- Sorry I just saw your reply. Thanks.EOM
-vg_future
Ellismd- Can you ask him not to publish the article?
-vg_future
ams13sag
If IDCC is trying to get Judge Lynn to take a look at the things that Sanders didn't allow, then I would expect to see lot of pacer filings from either side (IDCC filing for some reconsiderations and ERICY trying to object). Moreover, I don't know if the judicial system allows any such reconsiderations since it is the same case which is still ongoing. I am assuming that it would be like one judge questioning another judge's judgement while the case is still going (i.e., I don't know how motions for reconsiderations are handled while the case is still open..probably it is possible once the case is over through re-appeals).
Well, anyway, time will answer most of these questions.
I thought there wass a filing during last week that Nieves or Ellismnd reported...but no one commented on it. That would be interesting.
-vg_future
ams13sag--it depends on how you read it. I try to look on the positive side. If IDCC hasn't seen anything positive from ERICY on the table, why would they accept further delay in this long legal war. After seeing ERICY for so many years (including ERICY's behavior of backing off from discussions that happened between 1988-1993 for licensing) I would hope IDCC has gained enough applicable experience. IMHO the parties are currently sorting the details for an amicable solution. Hope is eternal.
Good luck.
-vg_future
Dave. Thanks for the report.
If judge did not delay the trial!!! Really good.
This only means that there are meaningful discussions going on between IDCC and ERICY. The negative mentioned by the report is assuming that IDCC has yielded to something and took the risk of giving more time to ERICY. After so many years of legal battle, I don't think IDCC would foolishly agree to postpone the trial unless it saw something really working out.
I take both good and bad in a good sense. This is only my opinion.
Good luck to all.
-vg_future
Nieves-could you also post on Yahoo board that 144 filing was old. Just to avoid any confusion.
Great day. Good luck to all longs.
Kudos to Dallas fleet and all the longs who have been putting effort to make this board knowledgeable.
-vg_future
What's up with these insider sales? I am trying to take them as non-events...but they keep coming one after another. Now, I am just praying...hope this too is a non-event.
-vg_future
Teecee..Can the buyer of these shares be a company trying to take a stake (strategic partner)? I am trying to get some logical explanation for the selling.
Thanks!
-vg_future