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.
I hope within the next week or so we all feel they deserved these bonuses and more. I hope we don't get disappointed when the payment option selected by Sammy is revealed. Good luck all, only a few more days (I hope) to find out if Charlie Brown if finally able to kick that damned ball. I sure hope Lucy doesn't somehow pull it out from under him again.
Samsung expected revenue.
Looking at the LG contract which ends in 2010, to compare it to the Sammy deal which goes until 2012, you would have to add 2 extra years of payments to the LG contract to accurately compare the 2 deals. LG paid us $285 million which averages $56 million per year, even adding this average to the $285, the LG deal thru 2012 will be worth almost $400 million. The other thing to remember is using the average revenue is probably on the low end since at the beginning of the LG contract there were far fewer 3g devices being sold than there will be sold in 2011 and 2012. LG's market share back in 2006 was also lower than it is today. Also add in the time value of money and early payment discounts to the LG amounts to see it was worth even more than $400 million.
Now considering that Sammy has a much bigger market share, what would be a fair amount for them to pay since they are settling all issues with this deal. If they settle for anywhere clost to Tom Capentars low estimate which is only $400 million, then they are giving away the store and rewarding the bad behavior of litigation and stalling.
While I am hopeful they settle for north of $500 million and it deserves to be much higher IMO, past experience with IDCC tells me to not expect it to be higher than this. Like I posted above, the LG deal if you take the same annual revenue for the additional 2 years of the Sammy settlement is worth almost $400 million, how much more should Sammy have to pay considering their market share today is double that of LG and almost triple what LG's share was when LG signed back in 2006. If my memory is correct LG's market share in 2006 was in the 6-7% range.
Legal expenses will not drop anywhere near what people are hoping for. Even if Nokia were to drop their suits, then we will be starting up suits against the other thieving b@stards who are stealing our property. There will always be scumb@gs out there who will be stealing our tech and the nature of the beast is we will need lawyers to defend it.
There may be a small drop off for a short period of time but it will not be huge like some are expecting. Sort of like the "peace dividend" that we had as a country when the Soviet Union fell, there were others who took their place and required us to spend huge sums to defend our way of life.
Message In Reply To:
Accountants Please
Can some of you show the expenses for IDCC in 2009 if legal expenses is down to 15 million a year and the chip expenses is no longer a drag. How much should this saving alone mean to the bottom line. Shouldn't it account for around $20.00 a share with a reasonable mulitple, or am I wrong.
Mickey
Hey at least it will probably provide more revenue than that licensee of all time Hop On lol.
But to be serious, at least it is a new license. Hopefully more are to come.
Message In Reply To:
I believe that there is a charge that the news wires requires in order to put out a press release. This charge my be more than the license is worth...lol
Sorry it is a license but you have to laugh.
Hey at least they were able to issue a press release and we didn't have to dig it up in court filings or SEC filings like other agreements. Have they ever issued a press release yet on LG?
Message In Reply To:
Woohoo!! so this brings what....
another $1k to the bottom line. Stock is really moving in the pre-mkt :)
The other big cost difference between states is the amount of state taxes added to the gas. This can cause the price between states to vary by a lot.
To all, if you haven't read the story Mag posted, please click on the message I am responding to and take a few minutes to read it, it will be worth your time. It is sure to bring about a good feeling in your heart. I skipped it but then went back and read it and I am glad I did.
Thank you Magilla and thanks Art for sharing it with us in the first place. Merry Christmas to all.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. Hopefully all the years of anguish and ups and downs are near an end. Good luck to all in the new year. It sure has been a wild ride that is hopefully approaching the most fun part of all.
What a joke that Harry put his own money into the company. Sure he did put in some money as a loan and was repaid all of it in months. How many on this board have put up a lot more than Harry did and for far longer, measuring in the decades? To my knowledge, Harry never bought a single share in the open market. He took over a million shares through excessive option grants for a part time job during the hey day of printing stock certificates that we then bought back for probably over $20 million for his shares alone to get our float back down. For a part time job he was compensated what amounts to well over a million per year. Harry has exercised and sold boatloads of shares and received millions upon millions while many on this board continue to wait. Harry sure doesn't need anyone defending him, especially with misinformation as to what he did with his money when he came on board. What a gig if you can get it.
Message In Reply To:
I appreciate your retraction. Harry is well compensated, and by golly, I will be too. Harry came into the company when it was basically upside down after it was defeated by Motorola. That defeat was due to a couple of circumstances.
Lawyers for IDCC where not up front on a few facts and most of all, Motorola pulled the apple pie off the window sill and was able to portray IDCC as a foreign company attempting to take $$ away from an American company. no matter that IDCC was an American company, the technology they were supporting was used mainly across the pond.
Harry came in to a company that was just beaten down and had no money and, more importantly, had tarnished credibility. He gave money from his pocket and put it at risk because he saw something good, or he saw an opportunity to jump into a situation where the company was distressed and he could make a buck.
Amazingly, that is why I jumped in when I did. I saw a company that had an incredible product and story that, like Harry, I thought it would not be long before I will capitalize on my investment. I took advantage of the fact that the share price was in the throne. I bot from $23 down to under $5 and have an average of around $7.
we all got into IDCC to make a buck. Some of us took fliers on Options, some on margin, some went short and some got hosed. It all depends on how you, me, or Harry choose to get to that gold ring. I chose to buy and hold, painful as it has been, I have only freaked once and sold some only to buy back with a few more than I sold, but while I was out, greed was in control and I could not live knowing or thinking that I would miss the "big one", because I know IDCC would have the big one, just as I believe Harry believes.
only one CEO that we had has pizzed me off. Greckenstien. He could not keep his head down when the bush wacker was clearing the land. He was short lived and I was very happy with that.
Howard was perfect to take his place. Howard was guarded at a time we needed to keep our heads down. He governed over a very tough time for the company. he kept the coffers as full as he could and tried not to cause trouble for the big boys. he made some mistakes and at a point in time when we needed to stick our head up and announce that we are still alive, he could not do it. His style of driving behind the wide load at 45 MPH for miles had served us well and had come to an end.
Enter William. He had the fur to stick our head up and proclaim here we are and we deserve our money. He was the right person to have at the helm at that time.
Harry made all these decisions.
Thank you Harry
You have been stating that a deal is done with Nokia based on the Sammy rate. If Nokia and Sammy and all the other thieving fXXXs out there have shown us anything it is that they will wait to sign until forced to. There is no agreement between Nokia and IDCC at this time even though you believe otherwise. Sammy was forced to come to terms and at the last minute they got a 2 month reprieve. Hopefully the term sheet does get put down in a final agreement and I would think it will, but even that agreement is not 100% final.
Based on how things have gone with this company since I have owned it, I would not be surprised if Sammy backed out at the last minute and says too bad, we are not signing an agreement. I don't think this will happen, but if it did, it would not surprise me at this point. Nokia will sign when they are put in the same position as Sammy, on the courthouse steps IMO.
Since litigation hasn't even started against Ericy and Motorola, I would be surprised if a deal with them comes in 2009. Motorola has gotten away without paying us a single dime with their strategy to date so why change it when money is tight? Ericy only paid us what amounted to pennies on the dollar when forced to and for 3g they have not yet been forced to cry uncle so why would they now?
Message In Reply To:
Desert Dweller
Would you sign a deal before your competitor that was in second place, and find out you signed to pay more than them. I think you would do just like Nokia did and see how low of a rate Samsung got and either have agreed to that rate less X. or bargain from that rate. I am damn sure IDCC would have loved to had Nokia sign a rate first as I bet anything it would be higher than what the Samsung rate is. I could be wrong on this but that would be my guess.
Mickey
Why would Harry selling when things have never looked better be bullish?
Now that poor Harry has 100,000 fewer options for all his fine work over the past decade plus, I think we should give him more. Let's replenish his little kitty. Poor Harry has sold hundreds of thousands of shares making him millions upon millions while many have waited for the brass ring to come around before selling.
It is amazing how some here think Harry deserves all that he has taken over the years for what amounts to a part time job. All those shares that he took we had to buy back to reduce our float at a very high average price per share. I am sure Olddog could find out what we paid but I would say that it was probably in excess of $20/share that we paid to buy back the stock to reduce the float back to where it was in the 90's.
Good for Harry, hurray!!
Message In Reply To:
Harry just made 2 Million. He never sold no matter how bad things looked....now he sells and things have never looked better. I take this sell as very bullish!
Mickey, the company has stated what the $2 means and what the buck fifty means but you don't want to believe it. It is their GOAL to achieve it based on all types of revenue, not just royalties. They also stated this is just one example of IF THEY achieve a buck fifty per device how much their revenue would be. They have never stated that they will definitely achieve it but stated it as an example if they license 75% of the market at a buck fifty per device revenue COULD BE x. Stop believing that little voice in your head and start believing what is said during conference calls and other presentations.
Message In Reply To:
Jimlur and others
How about calling Janet and asking her to get Mr Meritt to let us know exactly what his $2.00 number is in reference to. Does it include presently licensed and future licensed companies. Does his maitaining the $1.50 still in 2012 not include all licensed companies, as how can you say a amount and it not include all?
Lets make the man ackowledge that what he says is what he means, and what he means is all licensees will arrive at the amount he is utilizing in his talks.
lets see if we can put a end to the people not associated with IDCC telling everyone numbers that are contradictory to what the CEO has alluded to.
Do you think we can get a straight answer on this?
Mickey
Mickey, I can't help myself but to respond to you for some reason. It is you that needs to get things through his thick head not others. Why in heaven's name do you believe that Nokia would put their fate in the hands of a competitor. For Nokia to have agreed to terms based on what Sammy agreed would be putting their fate in the hands of others which they are not about to do. You can stick with whatever story you want to if it helps you sleep at night but your unending, repetitive posts are comical. You haven't changed one bit since your self imposed exile from this board LOL.
Management has NEVER SAID that IDCC and Nokia have agreed to terms, except maybe in your own mind. What they stated 8 months ago was that they resolved many of their disputed issues. Obviously that is still a long way from an agreement since it has now been 8 months and no update or agreement. Remember, management is under no obligation to update us based on their own disclosure as filed in the quarterly and annual reports. They easily could be miles apart again or they could be hours away from a deal we just don't know.
Message In Reply To:
whizzeresq
Why don't you and the rest get it through your heads, that IDCC and Nokia has agreed to terms, but the terms was restricted to what the Samsung final agreement was. Nokia's rate could never be agreed on because Nokia wasn't about to be caught paying more than Samsung, and IDCC wasn't about to give even Nokia a MFL clause, as they finally learned a lesson on MFL. I think all the other parts of the agreement was already settled on as once those were agreed on it has always been the rate, and Samsung was going to be the deciding factor on what rate they wouldn't have to exceed, but most likely have to pay that or that less a volume discount. This is my story and I am sticking to it.
I posted every time that Samsung would be the first to fall, and Nokia would not be a problem after Samsung. Sony Ericsson should not be a big problem I wouldn't think, but one never knows. If IDCC offers Motorola anything less than the highest number paid by a licensee, then I would love to slap the hell out of who would agree to anything less.
I don't know exactly what the short term holds but boy is this stock spring loaded to fly. If the CEO'S comments hold true about per unit average. You take the still remaining shorts and the calls that should finish in the money, the amount of shares needing to be covered would be about 16% of total outstanding shares.
If and I say if the market makers desire and Heartland doesn't have to sell out then a sling shot stock price could well be on the horizon.
Just my opinion.
Mickey
Mickey, DR was right, you don't bother to listen just like in the past and you keep asking the same question over and over again. He already answered your question in a previous post that the 8k came out to let everyone know that even with the Batts decision, all is not over with Nokia. Sure they never did it before but that doesn't mean that they couldn't do it for the first time. Read every quarterly and annual filing from IDCC as well as other companies disclosures and you will see they ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION to update you if conditions change regarding forward looking statements unless required by law.
from the 10q:
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Such statements include the information under the heading “Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and other information regarding our current beliefs, plans and expectations, including without limitation the matters set forth below. Words such as “will,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “continue to,” “likely” or similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q include, without limitation, statements regarding:
• The potential effects of new accounting standards on our financial statements or results of operations, if any;
• Our amortization of fixed-fee royalty payments and recognition of deferred technology solutions revenue over the next twelve months to reduce our September 30, 2008 deferred revenue balance;
• Our future tax expense and changes to our reserves for uncertain tax positions;
• The timing and outcome of our various litigation and administrative matters;
• The valuation of our investment in Kineto;
• The strategic direction of our SlimChip product business;
• Our expectation that we will not need additional financing beyond that available under the Credit Agreement;
• Our book tax rate for fourth quarter 2008;
• The fundamental growth prospects for the 3G handset market and their impact on our business model; and
• Our ability to add substantial new licensees.
Forward-looking statements concerning our business, results of operations and financial condition are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, and actual events that occur, to differ materially from results contemplated by the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the risks and uncertainties outlined in greater detail in Part I, Item 1A of our 2007 Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to revise or publicly update any forward-looking statement for any reason, except as otherwise required by law.
That is strange because it is my understanding that it should have turned into a market order and you should have been filled at the higher price but I could be wrong. It could be your broker?
Message In Reply To:
Something strange happened today...
I placed a sell order for some shares (I am trying not to be greedy,rode the price from $17.42) and placed the limit order at 24.87. The price jumped right past my order and kept on going?
Is this a signal of the lack of liquidity in these shares? I was amazed that I was trying to sell my shares almost .35 cents below the current market price. I was lucky enough to cancel my order!
Any thoughts?
Is something supposed to happen? Is that what is causing the stock to mover higher?
Message In Reply To:
somebody check pacer
gattica, I noticed that too for the past several alerts, the one with the broken link has been getting the notifications out faster than the other one. How come the one who is no longer responsible gets the news to investors faster, although with a broken link?
Message In Reply To:
Jim, i get 2 emails now, one is from Alert@ccbn.com, that's the dead link. Then the second one is from alert@broadcast.shareholder.com.
The funny thing though, at least today, the one that sends the dead link is 15 minutes faster. So going to the site once you see it is till the best way if, it's something that might need to be reacted to.
How can the SIPC be expected to pay out any money to investors? Madoff's fund was unregulated and therefore probably did not pay into the fund. This was an unregulated investment so why would taxpayers and the SIPC be on the hook for any of it?
Don't get me wrong, I feel very sorry for all who have been bilked but they invested in an unregulated investment and therefore should not be eligible. Not to mention the fact that the SIPC has only $1.5 Billion available and the max is $500,000/account so most will not get much even if the entire balance in the SIPC was paid out to Madoff's victims.
Message In Reply To:
Don't worry, be happy!!
Madoff Investors May Be Protected By Government
Judge Says Those Duped Need Aid Under The Securites Investor Protection Act
Timeline: U.S. Credit Crunch & Financial Failures
View Market Summaries & Leading Stock
NEW YORK (CBS) ― Federal investigators remain at the investment offices of disgraced investor Bernard Madoff, scouring through records to learn the scope of what may be the biggest Ponzi scheme ever in the United States.
The numbers are staggering, the losses far-reaching, but help may be on the way for investors thanks to an order for protection from a federal judge.
The scheme was operated out of the so-called "Lipstick Building" on Third Avenue. Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC occupies three floors and may have bilked investors of $50 billion.
Prosecutors say it was a classic Ponzi scheme. The firm paid-off earlier investors with money from new investors. It collapsed amid a nervous economy when some people wanted their money out.
"I believe he was a polished, polished, highly sophisticated schemester," said investors' attorney Mark Mulholland.
Mulholland's Long Island firm represents some 100 investors that could grow to several hundred who claim they lost millions.
"University endowments, pension funds; the scope seems to be limitless and affects little people too," says Mulholland.
In addition to publisher Mort Zuckerman; Fred Wilpon, owner of the Mets; former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman; there were the modest investors who put their faith in Madoff.
"We lost our life savings," said investor Joan Sinkin.
Brooklyn transplants to Florida, Sinkin and her husband Arnold said they lost 85-percent of a nearly $1 million investment.
"We were able to do things to enhance our retirement. Then in 72 hours, we were bankrupt," she said.
It's charged at least 50 charities were bilked, including a charitable fund set-up by the family of Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
Meanwhile, a federal judge on Monday threw a lifesaver to investors who may have been duped, saying they need the protection of a special government reserve fund set up to help investors at failed brokerage firms.
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered that clients of Madoff's private investment business seek relief under a federal statute created to rescue cheated investors. Stanton also ordered that business be liquidated under the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court and named attorney Irvin H. Picard as trustee to oversee that process.
Stanton signed the order after the Securities Investor Protection Corporation asked that steps be taken to protect investors in the scheme, which has ensnared several major banks and prominent figures as victims and could result in as much as $50 billion in losses.
Congress created the SIPC in 1970 to protect investors when a brokerage firm fails and cash and securities are missing from accounts. Funds can be used to satisfy the remaining claims of each customer up to a maximum of $500,000. The figure includes a maximum of up to $100,000 on claims for cash.
The order came just days after federal prosecutors charged Madoff with securities fraud, saying he had admitted to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme. Madoff is free on $10 million bail after he was charged with securities fraud last week.
Ira Lee Sorkin, Madoff's lawyer, declined to comment.
SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said in a statement that the fund's task will be harder than in other bankruptcies because of the size of the misappropriation and the condition of the defunct firm's records.
Harbeck said it would be unlikely that the trustee can transfer the firm's customer accounts to a solvent brokerage firm. He added that it was impossible at this point to determine what share each investor might hold in any remaining assets.
From its inception through December 2007, the SIPC has advanced $507 million and made possible the recovery of $15.7 billion in assets for an estimated 626,000 investors, the fund said on its web site.
Several major banks including Spain's Grupo Santander SA, Britain's HSBC Holdings PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Man Group PLC, France's BNP Paribas and Japan's Nomura Holdings reported falling victim to Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme.
http://wcbstv.com/business/madoff.ponzi.scheme.2.888036.html
How sad is that? There is a good chance that if you were lucky enough to have pulled your money out, even up to several years ago, you might have to return some or all of it to pool it with the others so everyone gets equally screwed. The pain this scumbag caused is unprecedented and no punishment will go far enough for him IMO. He should not have been released from jail and should never see the light of day again but he will as most white collar criminals don't pay the time they should.
Message In Reply To:
DD, I can't argue with a thing you have said. Except the little guy whose money was pooled with others monies and then handed to Madoff by their money manager didn't have a choice. Others did. Like those who could afford to play while little investors couldn't.
I heard something tonight on CNBC about those who profited from Madoff may have to return some of the funds.
Danny, you are correct that they could never be trusted. Unfortunately in the past as you said, it was caught sooner. Beginning with the Reagan administration and continuing with each administration thereafter, regulation has been regulation has been stripped away in the name of freedom and capitalism. Listen to the talking heads on CNBC, especially that dope Kudlow, and they will tell you how we don't need more regulation, what a bad joke that is. Sure the thieves don't want more regulation because that just might stop them from being able to pull off another Madoff.
As far as how it was done, how many other unregulated hedge funds are doing the same thing right now? There is minimal to no regulation from these guys and the only thing that would surprise me is IF there aren't more that come out from behind the walls. The shear amount of wealth and greed that has erupted on the street is disgusting. When you think about it, the decisions and criminal activity caused and overseen by several thousand in charge around the country and the world who knew or should have known better that did nothing to prevent this mess wreaked unprecedented havoc on billions of people around the world. The CEO's, politicians, and regulators, any number of them who could have blown the whistle over the years to have stopped this and didn't, were either incompetent or criminal, take your pick.
Enough of a rant for now. We can all agree this was disgusting on unprecedented proportions. Let's hope we get through this without too much more pain but I don't think that is the way it will play out.
Message In Reply To:
DD .. Wall street CAN NOT BE TRUSTED and more regulation is needed.
WS could NEVER be trusted. That is what regulation is all about. Can it stop it entirely .. nope. There will always be instances of people .. mostly the "little" guy .. getting ripped off. Regulation mitigates the damage, that's all. Take regulation away and the thieves are free to operate unencumbered.
In my 25 career career on WS there were several instances of the thieves having their way .. BUT it was short lived and resulted in minimal damage, relatively because of the strict enforcement of securities regulation. I still can't get my mind around Madoff and how he was given free reign to plunder.
I'd like to make another point. I certainly understand why those on this board do not want to entrust the management of their money to professional investors. However, think about this .. do you think that managing your money yourself and doing your own DD will protect you from the thief element on WS? Everyone here is scratching their heads about why IDCC's stock price doesn't correlate with our DD. It is really simple .. what we think about the value of IDCC has NO effect on the stock price any more. WS sets the price and that is the end of that tune.
MO,
Danny
Jim from now on, just go directly to IDCC's main page, then investor relations and then SEC filings. For the past couple of press releases that is the way I was able to view it after receiving the email alert from the company.
my3's, the sad thing is it was not just the rich who got screwed by Madoff. There were pension funds out there who had portions of their investments with them not to mention some charitable trusts also. So again the little guy also got screwed. Not too mention the fact that banks are on the list, how much more bailout money will be spent due to stupidity?
If this didn't point out to congress that hedge funds need the same regulation and disclosure as any other mutual fund, I don't know what it will take? There are many ways around the bs requirement about being a sophisticated investor that little guys also got hurt in this mess. I am sure with Congress's pockets being filled by the hedge fund managers, that there will not be the regulation that is needed but that is the way it is.
Like CNBC said, how many other cockroaches haven't come out from behind the walls yet? Madoff will not be the only criminal hedge fund operator out there and I am certain others will come forward. I wonder how much he gave over the years to the political parties to keep his game from being regulated? Wall street CAN NOT BE TRUSTED and more regulation is needed.
Message In Reply To:
Maybe those who like to invest in Hedge funds and play against all the other stupid investors(longs) will learn a lesson. It is easier to learn to be rich than it is to have been rich and learn to be poor.
List of Madoff's Victims Keep Growing, Likely to Extend Beyond Clients
Posted Dec 15, 2008 01:37pm EST by Aaron Task in Investing, Newsmakers
Related: ^dji, ^gspc, ^ixic, SPY, DIA, QQQQ
The victims of the Bernie Madoff scandal continue to mount and include some of the world's biggest financial institutions, major fund of funds managers, well-heeled individuals and many charities.
Henry Blodget has compiled an exhaustive list here, but some of the biggest names include: movie mogul Steven Spielberg, New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, and real-estate magnate Mort Zuckerman.
Among the institutions, Madoff's investors included Walter Noel's Fairfield Greenwich Group, whose $7.3 billion Fairfield Sentry Ltd. invested with Madoff, HSBC, Banco Santander, Nomura, UBS, fund of fund shop Tremont Capital and many more.
Many of Madoff's victims lived in Palm Beach, Fla. which is already reporting multi-million dollar real estate listings related to the scandal, and bracing for more. Madoff also "tapped social networks in Dallas, Chicago, Boston and Minneapolis," the WSJ reports.
Some witnessing the suffering of so many wealthy individuals and firms are probably feeling a bit of schadenfreude today. There's a rising sense of populism and "eat the rich" mentality in America today, for obvious reasons.
But many people's entire net worth has been wiped out by the scam, as well as any number of philanthropic organizations. Furthermore, pressure on the fund of funds who invested with Madoff; that, in turn, is going to add to the already intense pressure on their hedge fund clients. Even if that only damages investor sentiment, it could very much affect portfolios of people who never heard of Bernie Madoff prior to last week.
If there's anything we've learned this year it's that anyone with any skin the game is interconnected to everyone else - for better or, more typically in 2008, worse.
I guess I just wish they were hurt more. Our laws are not set up to punish them enough IMO. The fact that they have accumulated millions and billions, even if they lost a very big share of it, they will still be left with very high net worth's. The same can't be said for the millions of Americans who have watched the value of their retirement savings drop by 50% but their balances were much smaller and will hurt much more on a relative basis. Many who are in retirement or are approaching retirement will be forced to work many more years just to survive and yet those who caused this mess will probably still have millions. Sure they may have to get rid of a vacation home or two but who is hurting more?
Personally I think all who were responsible whether it was because they were criminal or just inept as most of the boards and CEO's of the companies involved should be forced to give up all their assets and start over like millions of Americans are going to have to. Why should they be able to keep their mansions, yachts etc when they were responsible for the greatest destruction of wealth in the history of mankind? Unfortunately they will be left standing when all is said and done while millions of innocent people will not be.
Message In Reply To:
DD .. What I have a hard time believing is that the CEO's of all these financial companies with such great vision to have been appointed to these positions, couldn't see it coming.
I think they did see it coming and the "cover-up" was the biggest crime of all. WS and the politicians could have contained the crisis a year ago but that would mean they would have to take some short term pain. They gambled (with our money) that everything would work itself out. They kept doubling down to boot and now that the cat has come ROARING out of the as a full fledged tiger, they are left with nothing but solutions conceived in a panic which is never a good thing and almost certainly doomed to failure.
I misspoke in saying those asking for less regulation were hurt the "most" but make no mistake about it, on a relative basis, they are hurting a plenty and that is a VERY good thing.
MO,
Danny
Danny, unfortunately I don't think you are correct in this statement:
"The only source of comfort and hope is that this time some of those organizations and individuals that screamed the loudest for reduced regulation have been hurt the worst financially."
Those who should have been hurt the worst have bled the country and economy for years and I am sure have accumulated millions and billions that they will still have a huge amount left in their accounts when all is over. The same can't be said for those blue collar workers and also white collar workers who are now standing on the unemployment line that never got the millions and billions in bonuses. There are millions of Americans that are a paycheck away from being homeless so your statement that those who were asking for less regulation are the ones hurt the most is unfortunately not correct IMO. Many more innocent Americans and individuals around the world were hurt far worse than those scumbags all with the consent of politicians.
One thing CNBC said the other day that I am fearful of being revealed is the cockroach theory. When you see one there are many more in hiding. You can be certain that Maddoff is not the only cockroach that did what he did and there will be more billions that will vanish. The lack of oversight is criminal that the politicians allowed for these "sophisticated investors" that should have known better. What about the poor employees where portions of their retirement plans were invested with Maddoff without their knowledge.
What I have a hard time believing is that the CEO's of all these financial companies with such great vision to have been appointed to these positions, couldn't see it coming. The shear greed that blinded most of the heads of the financial companies that allowed this to happen would be unbelievable if it weren't true. Unfortunately the average person in America and around the world will pay a far higher price than those who were actually responsible for the poor decision making over the past decade or two. Maybe not in total dollars but impact on their day to day lives.
Message In Reply To:
OT Jim .. I have a hard time realizing how our elected officials who have control over watchdog groups such as the SEC could let this happen?
There are two groups who have ALWAYS had the biggest and easiest opportunities to steal 24/7: WS and Politicians. Their definition of doing something wrong is getting caught. Ergo, the key is to catch them early before they do major damage.
I just read this in an article of Madoff, "Meanwhile, it was revealed yesterday that Madoff's investment business hasn't been inspected by the Securities and Exchange Commission since he registered with the agency in September 2006, according to Bloomberg News. Generally, the SEC scrutinizes a newly registered firm's books in the first year and then checks them at least every five years."
The only source of comfort and hope is that this time some of those organizations and individuals that screamed the loudest for reduced regulation have been hurt the worst financially. Whatever one thinks of Obama, we had all better hope that he makes it very clear from the get go that he is bringing a new sheriff to town with him to replace the one who's office has been empty for several years. Perhaps this mess will result in the sheriff being welcomed with open arms and applause.
MO,
Danny
DR, silly question, is our friend IDCC a member of the patent pool?
Message In Reply To:
LG reignites IPR nerves surrounding LTE
The issue of patent royalties is an increasingly sensitive one for emerging standards – excessive IPR burden can wreck the economics of creating low cost devices, and patent litigation can delay uptake of a new system.
LG caused a stir then – perhaps unwittingly – when it showed off the first LTE handset chip last week, and at the same time boasted of having 300 patents related to the technology.
The report, in Korea Times, caused ripples of nervousness because LG is not a participant in the patent pool that several large vendors formed last spring for LTE. The aim of this group is to create a cross-licensing framework, and sign up sufficient numbers of IPR holders, that it will achieve “fair and non-discriminatory pricing” amounting to a single digit percentage of the cost of a handset, and single digit dollars for a laptop, for all associated intellectual property, commented Arstechnica.
Patent pools are gaining in popularity as new standards emerge with ever larger numbers of patents involved, but with rising pressures to be cost effective. The WiMAX community created the Open Patent Alliance earlier this year, and this week, the IEEE standards body struck a two-year deal with Via Licensing, one of the most prominent patent pool administrators. This agreement will create one or more patent pools for key IEEE communications standards, including Wi-Fi. The standards group believes this will help drive its specifications into the market more quickly because vendors will have greater confidence that IPR licensing will be fair and patents declared upfront before standards find their way into commercial products.
Published : 12/12/2008
Related Stories:
Nokia to pay Qualcomm €1.7bn in royalties
Huawei agrees to broad ranging patents deal with Nokia and NSN
LTE patent situation remains fragmented, threatening no-subsidy handset
http://www.rethink-wireless.com/?article_id=842
Andrew, IDCC does sign 10-15 year agreements like Q, the only difference is that Q does it at the beginning of the term while IDCC signs these agreements 5-10 years into the agreement. Sort of like settling with Ericy where we got paid for from 2003-2006 for all usage up thru 2006. Ericy began selling phones covered by that agreement in the early 90's. Now Ericy has been selling 3g phones and infrastructure since about 2000 and still no contract but don't worry we will sign soon and it will cover those sales too.
Sort of like with Nokia letting them go for all their 3g sales up thru 2006 in 2006 for the same amount they would have received for 2g only as a result of binding arbitration. Nokia began selling 3g phones and infrastructure since about 2000. Sort of like signing with Sammy for a contract terminating in 4 years but covering all past sales. Sammy will have been selling 3g phones since when, 2002 when you count all flavors of cdma2000? That is a 10 year deal just that they didn't sign it until after year 6 was over. Sorry I couldn't resist.
Message In Reply To:
I wonder why IDCC only negotiates 4/5 years term license agreements as where Qcom has 15 yr agreements. I would be happy with a longer term agreement, as that would put an extended view on earnings, and hopefully put a floor on the stock price.
Thoughts?
IMHO
DR the great thing (if there is one) about the foreign source withholding is that although at first glance it appears to be an offset to revenue, it is actually an offset to expenses. The income tax code allows US companies subject to limitations, to offset dollar for dollar income taxes paid to other countries. So even though the foreign source withholding is based on the the gross payment, it will reduce our income tax payments to the US dollar for dollar. In addition, there are times when it could also reduce the amount of payments owed to certain states so you could get more than 100% credit in certain circumstances. Like I said, subject to limitations.
Message In Reply To:
MTJBKH - any foreign source withholding taxes as partial offset to revenue?
No, taxes are assessed on net profits, not gross revenue
jmo, but institutions help, and can hurt. With 48% institutional ownership right now, that's only down 5% or so from our $35 stock price level. Some dees guys is makin da money. best money around here is to have a core and learn how to trade with them.
I am trying to keep my expectations low and hopefully will be pleasantly surprised. Every time I let my expectations get reasonable to high I have been disappointed. To me $500 million is not expecting too much and hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised. Not too much longer to wait. Good luck all.
Message In Reply To:
DD, If the deal is for 500 million including 2-G and 3-G paid up through 2012 I will be extremely disappointed.
Jim it will include paid up sales for all years up thru 2008, not just 2006, 2007 and 2008. Sammy doesn't have a 3g agreement that begins in 04/06 like Nokia, at least not yet. I would imagine their 3g sales will begin at the same time as Nokia's obligation but you never know. cdma2000 phones have been sold by Sammy since what year?
If they signed for at least $500 million even forgiving all prior sales and 2g, it would be decent IMO. Anything more than that and I would be happy. Anything less and they are rewarding bad behavior and telling everyone again, if you delay fight and steal, you save. Considering LG paid $285 million for all sales up through only 2010 for all flavors and when they signed they had only 6% market share, I sure hope Sammy's obligation is at least double that. Since they are getting an additional 2 years AND forgiveness of their 2g royalty obligation that LG never had as far as a court verdict is concerned Sammy should owe considerably more IMO. Only a month to find out. Keep your fingers crossed.
Message In Reply To:
Grither, Exactly. I use the 200 million for 2-G when I'm looking forward to 3-G revenues. I can't figure how our analyst figures this whole deal is worth 400/500 million until the end of 2012??
Even though this deal is claimed to be for 4 years it will also include paid up sales for 06,07, and 08.
In 08 alone there has been 286 million 3-G phones sold in the first 3 quarters and according to Qualcomm Samsung has a 16% shares of the market and has sold about 41 million phones.
data, I was lazy and didn't click on your link, sorry and thanks for the info. I am sure many will not believe it anyway.
Message In Reply To:
Dd - from the link I provided in my post
suggest that people read them (but then again, Mickey may not be able to see pdf files)
----
EP0536334 is the Euro version of the patent I cited:
Table 7 presents the results of the patent analysis. Motorola and Qualcomm, by any measurement,
have the highest scores. The average number of cites to their patents are 1.9 and 1.5
respective, far above the overall average of 0.66 cites per patent. The most valuable single
patents seem to belong to Qualcomm; their patent EP0536334 receives no less than 33 cites.
21
No other firm scores higher than 12 incoming cites for a single patent. Following Trajtenberg
(1990), we have calculated a proxy for patent value, that established the value of a single patent
to be one plus the number of cites it receives (i.e. the aforementioned Qualcomm patent
would receive a value of 1 + 33 = 34). If we would replace our ranking by the total number of
patents by the newly calculated value proxy, the most significant change is that Qualcomm
would move from the third to the first position, and Nokia vice versa. Thus by these measures,
Qualcomm seems to hold the most valuable patents.
Hi Data
I think it is funny the dialogue between Mickey and you. Actually I am surprised after all these years you continue to answer the same questions of his but I would like to thank you for it because you help to educate all of us about the technology.
Regarding your answer to Mickey, you said:
there are many critical areas of the technology, I doubt there is ONE patent which is most valuable, but most consider this as one of the foundations to CDMA and WCDMA:
US5416797 (and it's global counterparts)
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING SIGNAL WAVEFORMS IN A CDMA CELLULAR TELEPHONE SYSTEM
Now for my silly question, Is this an IDCC patent or someone else? Thanks and have a great weekend.
Don't worry its moving from weak hands to strong hands. How many times have we read that LOL.
In this market rational thinking doesn't matter. If it did, treasury inflation securities wouldn't be trading below face value but they are. If US Gov't securities are trading at a discount to true value, then why be surprised that IDCC is trading lower than expected?
Message In Reply To:
We need to keep buying back stock until we flush out the nervous nellies and short term day traders so the long term holders don't have to watch the stock crater for no reason.
Loop, there is no 30 day waiting period for those taking profits. If you sell a stock at a profit, you can buy it back a minute later without a problem. The 30 day requirement you are probably talking about is what is called a wash sale and only applies when taking a tax loss, not a tax gain.
Message In Reply To:
What happened
I believe a few folks recognized that a window of 30 days was running out for taking profit and buying back in before the financials of Samsung could be announced causing those with stop losses to get popped which may have caused some margin calls.
MO
Loop are you saying you can't have a valid contract if money is not received and in the bank? Surely not. Consideration as you know could be a receivable to be paid on a date certain and the contract is valid and should be announced. If the payment is not then received it is a breach of contract but it was still a valid contract with consideration at the time of signing.
As far as Apple is concerned, like I said, I believe when it was announced they said a payment to be received during the 3rd quarter. I could be wrong maybe it was someone else but I don't think so.
I stand by my statement, it is a message board myth that IDCC will not announce a contract until cash is received. That is just not the case. They announce it when the contract is signed and enforceable which could mean money to be received in the future. People on this board twist things around then they become fact like the statements about cash needing to be in the bank before a contract is announced.
Message In Reply To:
DD
There is no myth about the statements of Rip Tilden, Howard Goldberg and other IDCC personnel that their policy has been to announce when the front money arrives. You have no clue how or when Aapl paid. Many here got clobbered on options when LG signedbut the money was delayed a week. A group sought the services of a lawyer who told them to go home because they had no case. WM specifically said this morning that Samsung is licensed with its payment coming in early 2009 WHEN THE FINANCIALS CAN AND WILL BE DISCUSSED. A contract is no good until consideration passes mutually between the parties. If Samsung had dismissed its appeal with the CCA, that could be stretched as partial consideration. They did not and we shall see how IDCC treats the motion for stay and adjournment. It is the call of IDCC as to whether the license is enforceable, not a group of shareholders on a chat board. I am sure IDCC knows when and how to file SEC documents.
MO
loop
I am sure they will be but if the contract is not yet a done deal, they don't deserve them IMO until the contract is signed, sealed and delivered. They haven't reached the 50% threshold until the contract is signed and that should be the measurement. As some have posted here, a binding term sheet is not a contract yet. I have very, very little doubt that it will get done, but since as of today it is not yet done, they have not reached their goals yet.
Message In Reply To:
Will bonus payments be due as they have reached the 50% threshhold.
Loop, that is another message board myth that keeps getting repeated which then becomes fact as far as many assume it to be true. If there is a signed agreement and collection is not in doubt, the contract can and should be announced. In fact, I believe the Apple license was announced if my memory is correct, prior to receiving any money. But these myths are hard to kill.
Message In Reply To:
olddog
IDCC has stated before that it does not announce or report the signing of a new PLA until the first payment has been received. Therefore, I do not believe that they have to report until their criteria has been met.
MO
loop
Under your line of thinking, that would mean starting from scratch in the judicial system by filing a 2g patent infringement action. The fact is we have a contract and the legal route is the route we have taken which is to enforce the contract not to start over with a patent infringement suit for a dying technology. The courts would only enforce the contract we have which has been partially enforced by way of the bond put up by Sammy.
Haven't you learned from your past predictions of huge sums of money coming from infringer's? You were proclaiming the billions that were sure to come from Ericy and they didn't. Don't start reading into things that AREN'T THERE. We have only the contractual amounts coming from Sammy for 2g, stop spreading unfounded rumors that more money is coming from Sammy for 2g other than the $200 million maximum estimate from the CFO.
Message In Reply To:
DesertDweller
Let me ask you if Samsung has a valid contract with IDCC since they breached it when they failed to abide by the binding arbitration clause. Do you think they have a right to enforce any part of a contract that they don't honor their part of the contract. I think not, but that is my thinking, I am sure some of the legal eagles can enlighten us on this matter, I equate it as a renter not paying the rent, but wants you to repair something they broke.
If they indeed have no valid contract then the liability would continue would it not?
Mickey
enyaw, for some reason people here forget that Sammy's 2g obligation ended on 12/31/06. At that point there are no more 2g monies owed by Sammy, Nokia or Ericy according to the terms of the Ericy contract that by agreement both Nokia and Sammy got. That is what some people here keep forgetting when they post things such as estimates of what is owed after 12/31/06 for 2g.
Message In Reply To:
Jimlur...What everyone seems to be forgetting is that there would be an obligation to square away all the 2G issue not only from the ITT/courts 2000-2005 and the 2006 estimates, collectively totaling nearly $200 million, but what about the sales for 2007-08. I would think that would easily eclipse another $50 million. Add in the monies for past 3G and you may be looking at nearly $400 million due for past sales. How much will be forgiven for a 3G license going forward? That's the real question.
Loop, I agree 45 days is better than an adverse decision, just frustrated that they are not getting it done sooner. Like I said, they will use every available hour to get things done IMO. Now if only Nokia comes through with a real contract prior to the 45 days?
Message In Reply To:
DD
A settlement to be finalized within a 45 day period is far better than risking an adverse decision concerning the patents of the company. I am all for the decision of management. When you see companies being formed to accumulate opinions of prior art and no invention on patents in litigation from independent engineers in exchange for significant dollars, the climate is not good for patent holders. Can you imagine every retired engineer and youngsters just getting started having the opportunity to bag 50,000.00 dollars for a little research to uncover prior art?
mo
loop
There is a difference between negotiating an arms length agreement without real deadlines and one where either you get it done or there is a court verdict by a date certain. This is not the 1st contract being signed by either party and when all is said and done, it will probably be very similar to other deals other than the dollar amounts should be much higher.
If LG with 6% market share settled for $285 million, Sammy with 3 times LG's market share has to be at least double IMO. LG's agreement also ends sooner and they will have sold significantly fewer 3g phones than Sammy will over their contract time frame. I just hope we get a deal that we are expecting.
Message In Reply To:
Desert Dweller,
Unlike you I thought that 45 days is too short. I expected it takes 2 to 3 months to draft a license agreement.
Look at how many months it took from when Bill Merritt said that the economic terms were completed and we got an actual license agreement.
mo