Also lets see adding $50 or $100 million to the current buyback and annoucing that the buyback will be accelerated.

As part owner of this compnay I have certain rights. The right to make a proposal at the ASM and the right to vote my shares at that ASM.

My posts since the stock crashed have been focused on the next ASM. The only thing I'm short is cash.

My thoughts are probably stronger than Carptenters but with the same theme. He wants more alignment of management with shareholders and more flexibility when it comes to offers for the company.

I beleive a few ago we banded together to defeat a 5 million share incentive plan for management. I beleive we must band together again in order to get this investment more in line with our goals as shareholders to make money.

Mickey asked me what I would do if I were running things. At this point I would not go it alone with Nokia, I'd let Apple or TI or Cisco in as a technology partner and sell them 20% of the company and get some fresh inovative technolgy people to monitize these patents to inventions. But I'm not running this company.

But what I'd really like to do is gather up everyone who is unhappy with the share price and discuss options that we can do as a group. I don't beleive we have to just sit back and suffer while these guys continue to fail at increasing or even maintaining shareholder value.

So please stop telling people who are unhappy that we have had billions of dollars in cash generated by these patents yet no increase in shareholder value to sell. They have a right to express their displeasure of the situation. And they are the people that should be looking at the next ASM to force management to level the playing field for us shareholders by voting their shares on proposals that will increase shareholder value.

Whiz.

I did my masters thesis on Microsoft/DOS vs. ATT/Unix way back in 1986. Unix was the far supperior technology. DOS was limited and buggy. Also AT&T had the connections with all the major US corporations and was much bigger with more resorces then MSFT. And we see that MSFT cleaned it's clock. AT&T did not have Gates.

The fact is that the 10 year strategy toward getting Nokia signed isnot only a failing one but a strategy that is detrimental to the shareholders. Loop was 100% correct is stating that we should have got a 3G when we collected the $253 Million. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and thinking that the results will be different.

We need a new Nokia strategy, this one doen't work for the shareholders. Hell I'd let Nokia buy equity in the company for a deal now.

The street as in TC report is saying one unifrom messgae. Settle Nokia, PERIOD!! Too much to lose for a shareholders pespective than to continue risking these patents trying to sqeeze some more pennies out of a settlement. I don't beleive TC is taking the .35 cent number out of his butt. I think he is plugged in. Downside risk is large without a settlement. That is why the street decided to price IDCC at these levels.

Will LG sign a new license? The fact is the the risk of them not signing has increased since last friday when the decision was handed down. In these stocks court wins increase the price and court losses decrease.

So what I feel the street wants is deals and not decisions. Get out of the courts and sign Nokia and we will have less risk in the future.

Motive?

Can we get a grip, please.

The at-a-boy period for Harry and company stopped last Friday.

All these wonderful signings with Apple, Rimm, LG, Samsung, NEC, etc. Have not produced any sustained shareholder value.

In my 10 years in owning the stock I've experianced all these major high points. But with hundreds of millions of dollars collected and 50% of all 3g phones being licensed we still sit at under $20.

This has nothing to do with shorts.

Carpenter may just be the only friend we have. Great report. Ge is supportive which to me is incrediable after the loss.

He is trying to send a message to management. 1. Buy shares (maybe even stop selling) 2. Stop being so stubborn.

I remember Carpenters slam report on Harry a few years ago. He knows the deal and is still keeping his buy on.

All I know is we are lucky he is still here and it take balls on his part to stick around. Thank you Tom.

Forget Buyout talk all we really need to be concerned with is a level playing field

My really random valuations had IDCC at 4 Billion market cap with an ITC win and 2 Billion without. The 2 Billion is still pretty good something like $45 a share.

But the stock will never get there in my opinion with the way things are stacked against us. No big money players will come into this company with the way it is structured. I never saw this until this last verdict.

Without proper investment alignment of management with shareholders big money will pass. They hate poison pills and they have zero say in the direction this company goes. Was is a wise decision to put this company at risk and lose?

Maybe but that is not why I'm peaved. They took the gamble with no risk to this team. Basicaly all they risked was upside. Downside? With all the cash in the piggy bank these RSU will hold value so they can continue to issue and sell regardless of whether the share price is $20 or $40.

If the stock price is $40 Harry can get 150,000 RSU's granted to him. If the stock price is $20 Harry can grant himself 300,000 RSU's. great job if you can get it.

Bottomline, I feel we must band together and look out for each other because Harry and Co certainly are only looking out for thenselves.

The one thing I agree with all of you on is the raping of the shareholders by management on stock options.

Mickey I wish that was the case. If management was getting stock options then they would be motivated to get the stock price up. The stock options would be underwater and they would not be able to sell them.

This team lead by dry cleaner Harry gets RSU's or restricted stock units. Basically the company gives these guys shares for FREE.

Now Harry cashed in on about $3.6 Million in his pocket in the last year.

4-Jun-09 2,000 IDCC Acquisition at $0 per share.
28-May-09 48,000 IDCC Automatic of about $1,191,000
28-May-09 48,000 IDCC Exercise at $4.81 Cost of $230,879
15-Jan-09 10,000 IDCC Acquisition at $0 per share.
15-Jan-09 10,000 IDCC Automatic Sale Proceeds of $268,700
18-Dec-08 50,000 IDCC Exercise at $4.31 Cost of $215,499.
18-Dec-08 500 IDCC Sale Proceeds of $12,930
18-Dec-08 49,500 IDCC Sale Proceeds of $1,244,430
17-Dec-08 50,000 IDCC Exercise at $4.31 Cost of $215,499
17-Dec-08 50,000 IDCC Sale Proceeds of $1,254,000.
5-Jun-08 8,000 IDCC Acquisition
15-Jan-08 10,000 IDCC Acquisition at $0 per share.

Now just because the price is below $20 why should Harry suffer.

He can just grant himself more RSU's from the newly approved pool of 3 million shares.

Bottom line, we don't know what IDCC was offered by Nokia and we don't know what Harry's number is to settle. What we do know is that they can grant shares at whatever amount or pace so they basically have no risk to holding out.

What Is a Poison Pill?
by Marie C. Baca

Tags: Poison Pill, Shareholder, Investor, Marie Baca, Hostile Takeover..., Activist Shareholders, White Knight, Corporate Governance, Acquisitions, Investing, BNET Briefing

Created in the 1980s by M&A lawyer Martin Lipton, the so-called “poison pill” is a tactic public companies use to thwart hostile takeovers. In effect, it is an agreement adopted by a company’s board of directors that makes the target’s stock prohibitively expensive or otherwise unattractive to an unwanted acquirer. To date, no takeover bid has ever seen a poison pill fully executed — management teams typically have used the strategy as a deterrent and negotiation tool, buying their company time to bargain for a better purchase price.

But shareholders often rail against the tactic, arguing that they don’t always have the right to vote on the bid, and that a takeover bid that management finds unwanted could actually be in their best interest. Consequently, many public companies that become acquisition targets face the awkward decision to either appease investors or lose one of their most effective weapons against hostile takeovers.
Key Stats
Buzz phrase coined: 1982
Who coined it: Mergers and acquisitions lawyer Martin Lipton
Also known as: Shareholder rights plan, “shark repellent”
How long a poison pill lasts: About 10 years, unless the board decides to cancel it before the expiration date. However, now that shareholders are increasingly hostile to poison pill tactics, the current trend is to adopt more palatable pills that have a lifespan of just a few years.
downloadEmailShare
My BNETTwitterdel.icio.usGoogleStumbleUponNewsvineFacebookLinkedInDiggMy YahooTechnoratiRedditPrintRecommend33 .
How It Works
Most poison-pill agreements are triggered when an outside company or individual — think Carl Icahn, for example — acquires enough stock to gain a controlling interest in the target company. The term is often used as a catch-all for a variety of antitakeover measures, but in its most common form there are two primary tactics:


Flip-over: If a hostile takeover occurs, investors have the option to purchase the bidder’s shares at a discount, thereby devaluing the acquirer’s stock and diluting its stake in the company.

Flip-in: Management offers shares to investors at a discount if an acquirer merely purchases a certain percentage of the company. The discount is not available to the acquirer, and so it becomes extremely expensive for that acquirer to complete the takeover. Experts estimate that it would cost an unwanted bidder, on average, four to five times more to “swallow” a poison pill in order to acquire a target.

Although state courts have generally upheld the validity of poison pills since the 1980s, judges have recently leaned toward limiting their scope in order to protect shareholders. Currently, a target company can still legally keep its poison pill in place and accept an offer from another bidder, as long as the final acquisition price is higher than the original hostile bid. In the mid-1980s Revlon tried to skirt this legal requirement because its directors favored a deal with a private equity firm. But the courts eventually invalidated the company’s poison pill because Revlon repeatedly rebuffed higher offers from a grocery chain called Pantry Pride.

Why It Matters Now
According to research firm Thomson Financial, there are currently over 1,500 poison pills in place at public companies today, with nearly 35 percent set to expire over the next two years. That means that hundreds of companies will have to decide whether to placate shareholders and let them expire, or renew them and risk angering corporate investors and the increasingly influential private equity market. Some companies will put the decision to a shareholder vote, but the majority don’t require investor input for renewal of a poison pill.

Poison pills are generally on the decline in large-cap companies, with the notable exception of Yahoo, which has one in place that will be triggered if Microsoft or any other potential suitor buys more than 15 percent of the company without board approval. These days, it’s smaller firms that are increasingly taking up the strategy, both to ward off unsolicited bids and to drive up the price of the company should a takeover become inevitable. “Small-cap companies are more likely to perceive themselves as undervalued when the stock market fluctuates,” says Keith Gottfried, a partner at Blank Rome LLP who specializes in shareholder activism and corporate governance. Smaller companies are also cheaper to acquire, especially in a downturn, which makes the tactic more attractive to them.

Foreign companies are also turning to poison pills more frequently, particularly in Canada and Japan, where hostile bids are on the rise. According to Thomson Financial, overseas firms now account for nearly 70 percent of first-time pill adopters. In the U.S., hostile takeovers are fairly rare. There have been only 12 hostile bids exceeding $20 million in value in the U.S. since 2005. Historically, hostile bid activity decreases sharply during periods of recession.

Strong Points
As a defensive tactic, poison pills are extremely effective. Not only do they fend off unwanted takeover bids, but boards often argue that the strategy gives the company an opportunity to find a more suitable acquiring party, a so-called “white knight.”

Boards also favor poison pills for the leverage they bring to the bargaining table. In 2003, enterprise software giant Oracle attempted to acquire rival PeopleSoft through a $5.1 billion hostile takeover bid. But PeopleSoft’s poison pill was set to trigger if Oracle bought more than 20 percent of the company. After a year-long battle, PeopleSoft finally voided its poison pill and was acquired by Oracle for $10.3 billion — nearly double Oracle’s initial offer.

Weak Spots
Since shareholders could gain from a takeover, they often view management’s adoption of a poison pill as blatant disregard of investors’ interests. “Adopting a poison pill can really do a number on a company’s corporate governance image,” says Jeffrey Block, associate director for strategic research at Thomson Financial. “There is a knee-jerk reaction in the marketplace against anything that dilutes the power of shareholders.”

Accordingly, in some cases investors send a clear message that they don’t agree with management’s strategy by dumping some of their shares. Consider the example of oil company Tesoro: When the company adopted a poison pill in November 2007 to defend itself against billionaire Kirk Kerkorian’s Tracinda Corp., its stock plummeted almost 14 percent between the week before the announcement and the week after. In March 2008, Tesoro’s management dropped its poison pill, with CEO Bruce Smith explaining that the company wanted to act in “the best interests of our stockholders.”

When it comes to big institutional investors, many companies in fact don’t have the choice of adopting the tactic. Market giant Fidelity Management & Research, for example, says that it “will generally vote against a proposal to adopt or approve the adoption of an anti-takeover plan.”

How to Talk About It
Here are poison pill-related terms:

Activist shareholder: An investor who uses his stake in a company to influence the management and direction of that company. The rise in shareholder activism is one reason why many large companies have eschewed poison pills in recent years due to their “shareholder-unfriendly” reputation.

“Chewable” pill: A modified poison pill that can appease investors by permitting them to ask for a special shareholder vote to determine whether or not a specific bid can be exempt from triggering the pill. Such policies prevent companies from automatically discouraging takeover bids that may be lucrative for shareholders.

Black knight: A company that makes an unsolicited, hostile takeover bid on a target company.

White knight: A company that saves a target from a hostile takeover by acquiring it under more favorable terms and a better price per share.

Proxy contest: A technique used by a hostile bidder to rally a group of shareholders and their proxies (authorized representatives) to vote out the target company’s incumbent management and replace them with managers who will be more likely to accept the bid.

Additional Resources
Book: Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings, by Patrick A. Gaughan

Great idea olddog I'll include it as a separate issue.

I'm convinced that the reason that all of these patents have so little street value($840 MC - $340 CASH = $500 Million) is because of the anti-takeover measues.

These measures are supposed to be put in place to protect shareholders. In this case I beleive they have become a negative to shareholder value.

I'm not proposing a sale only the removal of the pill. That should put some pressure on these guys knowing that they can't just sit around and collect no risk shares.

My feeling is that this strategy was laid out years ago. No major adjustments were made. They had 10 years to do this deal with Nokia. The risk was always on the individual shareholder and never on the management team as long as they can continue to collect free RSU's.

So while they may be in a sweet spot in the biggest technology growth area since the dot.com era the share price languishes at $19.58. The street does not beleive that this business model is suistainable otherwise they would not have dumped the way they did this week.

Lets all hope that Merrit can pull something out of his hat next week but it sure doesn't look like it. No support in sight with the stock closing at yet another low today.

Bottom line these guys work for us and it is about time we let them know who they work for.

Stock is worth $19.58 a share

I have for years tried to get money managers, analysts and brokers involved in IDCC. The main reason has always been litagation risk when they look at IDCC. Well 10 million shares headed out of this company the other day and with no dead cat bounce they do not seem to be racing back.

In my opinion, the problem here is strategy. Litagation as The main strategy does not work. QUALCOMM had the initial litagation strategy settled in the late 90's and then developed technology and partnerships to make the company the $68 billion dollar market cap company it is today. IDCC allowed the llitagation strategy to go on for the last decade and sits at a market cap of $844 million or 1/80th the size of QUALCOM.

IDCC held onto this Nokia strategy way to long without developing the proper business partnership necessary for the compay to grow. They should have been developing better chip partners joint technology ventures.

Where is TI? Why couldn't they partner the modem business.

Even if they are proved right in the end and the appeals court sends it back to the ITC and then 1 1/2 years from now they get a ban. Gee really great business strategy. The big money guys will just wait the 1 1/2 years untill the deal is made.

Nokia is a roadblock because the company allowed it to become a roadblock.

P.S. I'm not short never have. Just a very disolusioned shareholder. And please don't ask me to sell before the next ASM. I will sell if my poison pill removal proposal fails by a shareholder vote.

All we need is to remove the poison pill. The rest will take care of itself. This poison pill is in place to protect the COB's piggy bank. Once that is broken the market will take care of the rest.

LETS BAND TOGETHER AND GET THIS DONE!!!![/B]

Insider what?

Why should they buy when they get all the shares they want for free?

Poison Pill Must GO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all I think it is highly insensitive to tell disappointed shareholders to sell. We have been played lie a fiddle by the COB.

The 3 million share grant this year is icing on the cake. Now I beleive all shares are grants via RSU's so these guys get the shares flat out without worrying about the share price.

At least with options they are granted at the price issued so if they were issued today at $20 a share they would need to be above $20 for the holder to male money.

With RSU the granted person receives shares for free. Now with the COB cashing in 168,000 shares in the last 12 months that would equate to about $3.4 million just for sitting in a chair.

I'm sure that his RSU grant for 2009 wil be heavy with 3 million newly authorized shares available.

So with all these no cost shares what is the big deal that they didn't sign Nokia? So they get a little less for the free shares they receive. They can always get more shares, sell, use cash to buyback shares and grant more shares to themselves. Great cycle if you can get away with it.

Oh, I forgot that they have a poison pen in place to make sure nobody comes and messes with this great set up that they made for themselves.

I will be submitting a proposal for next years ASM to remove this poison shareholder pill.

I've spent 10 years supporting and beleiving this group. Ilve always thought that the technology and patent portfolio had a value of about $4 BILLION or close to $90 a share. With the final ruling on friday I now beleive that the value of this portfolio has been cut in half.

This is a great board and a great group of shareholders who have been patiently waiting to be rewarded for years. I have been directing my attacks specifically at the COB because I think the CEO did his best. At least he brings a skill set to the table.

So if we can band together and get the poison pill removed, I beleive that plenty of companies would love to get their hands on this portfolio. That will finally drive real shareholder value and finally we will get paid.

Otherwise I see more of the same and we will languish for years to come.

Again before I start hearing the choruses of sell, I will if we don't get the poison pill removed. I will be making a proposal by the end of the year to be voted upon by next ASM as is my right as a shareholder.

Results needs to be measured in terms of how much has the IDCC investor has made within the last 10 years. The mistakes never cost the management team but always cost the shareholder.

The big mistake was agreeing to settle the $253 milion 2 g judgement without a 3g license. They got a temporary bump to the 30's where we had massive insider selling and bought back shares which eventually go to the insiders.

Now we will have more lawyers fees, more RSU's granted, more insider selling, more waiting for appeals courts.

This business strategy does not benefit the shareholders. It is not designed for us to be rewarded. It is designed for the golden goose to keep laying IDCC share eggs at Harry's door.

Nokia went to court and proved that they were right not offering IDCC the settlement they were looking for. How can I blame Nokia? Their management team fought for its sharehollders.

My main reason for screaming about insider share grants and selling is that the percentage of grants here are at a ridiculous level. If they were executing properly and the shareholders were rewarded also I'd keep my mouth shut and beleive they were justly rewarded. But because of bad execution I feel like they are not in line with the interest of shareholders and have motivation to keep things status quo and keep granting themselves shares and selling them putting our money in their pocket.

Danny, do I sense you coming around? Getting rid of the poison pill will allow for a hostile takeover.

This is not the time for in fighting. It is the time for shareholders to band together and demand fair treatment. Everyone keeps getting paid but us. Merrit should not be the target. Harry will just replace him with someone else. If we are to get any possible return out of our investment we need to put a target on Harry and get him out.

why do u keep on insisting on a buyout at 50? what's $3 in earnings for a public company worth?

My shares in this company are worth less than the $24.44 price it closed at on Friday.

Being here 10 years I feel unless something drastic changes (Harry packs it in) year 11 will be no different. Another case. 10's of millions to the lawyers, hundreds of thousands shares to insiders,company will buyback the shares that the insiders are selling and no rewarding of shareholders. OuCH, THANKYOU SIR MY I HAVE ANOTHER.

I've seen this cycle and this is not how business is suppose to run. Why do you think we do not get coverage? Why won't equity managers invest? Litagation as a business stratgey is too risky for wall street and unrewarding for shareholders.

A new experianced COD would bring partnerships, contacts and a different strategy. This strategy is only working for the lawyers and the insiders, specifically Harry.

A couple of weeks ago I started looking at the insider selling. Well, I see all the executives and the COB with nice planned 10b-1 sales and the COB (Harry) selling 168,000 shares for 3+ million over the last 10 months. I was also very perplexed at why last ASM they needed 2 million shares or 8% of the float.

I had invested in 2 small caps whose COB in both instances would not let go and road these companies into the ground (delisted and pennies) rather then move aside and let someone more qualified to take control.

I beleive that Harry is not qualified to be the COB of a wireless company. I think he is obsessed with winning this nokia case and the shareholders are paying the price.

I also beleive the technology today as is is worth $50 a share in a buyout.

My rights as a shareholder are limited. All we can do is put together a proposal for the next ASM and try to get the votes to get it passed.

I'd like to see the shareholders rewarded. The only way we will be rewarded is if we band together to take care of each other because I do not beleive the company will think in terms of shareholder first.

If we can't get anything done then I'll sell and move on but I'd like to try first.

Sell your shares?

I'm sick and tired of individuals getting their hands on companies and treating it like their own personal gravey trains. This is the 3rd small cap that I've seen this happen to.

As shareholders we have rights and if we bond together we can protect those rights. I'd like to sell my shares to CISCO at $50 a share. So why not get the poison pill removed and allow for other companies who have a proven track record of execution take over.

Long term shareholders are selling out and even dying waiting for Harry and company's hocley stick.

Get rid of the poison pill and we will get some return on our investment instead of selling out in the 20's.

Firing Merrit does nothing. It will not help shareholders one bit. We need to remove the poison pill and allow for the big well run technology companies to take over the BOD and the company. Merrit did more than Goldberg and I think works hard and tries. Harry collects RSU and has 150k planned 10B1 sales for the next 10 years.

A poison pill is suppose to protect shareholders from hostile takeovers. We need protection from the COB and his yearly fleesing of IDCC shares.

Remove the pill and it will be like throwing bait in the water. Watch all the fish swarm in. RIMM, CISCO, DELL, GOOGLE, APPLE, INTEL, TI, MSFT, ORACLE, QUALCOMM, HP, IBM, etc. Then a real board of directors can get proper value for these invention.

Removal of poison pill

I'm 1000% behind this move for next shareholder meeting. If we can band together and get this removed we will all gain 50% on our investment. The poison pill is only protecting Harry's piggy bank and adds 0 value to shareholders. We can never get fair value for our shares because companies can't even kick the tires with this pill in place. This has to be submitted before January to get on the agenda. Need to lobby Heartland and major holders to say enough is enough. Let the bidding begin.

Now you are talking. Think of the dynamic companies that have tons of cash that can really do something with this technology. We have been sitting at a billion dollar market cap for 10 strait years. Basically zero dollars returned to shareholders hundreds of millions to the executives. This is not how investing is supposted to work. Google, microsoft, dell, rimm, apple, cisco, qualcomm, all of the early investors made tons of money.

We need to break this management model to get paid or we will continue to gain no share appreciation and they will continue to grant and sell shares putting our money in their pockets.

No question about continuing the fight but I'd bring some back up. I'd like to get a substantial equity investment in this company by _______ Fill in the blanks, apple, cisco, dell, ti, rimm. (microsoft is probably the american version of nolia so i'd leave them out0. Say 10 million shares at $30 a share. Now put some dynamic leadership on the board of directors and see what happens. Maybe you set yourself of for a cheap taeout $50 a share but at least we get paid. Hell we gave away 20 million shares to this group of executives in the last 15 years so why not get some real executives involved.

At least Uncle Billy brings a skill set to te table. The problem, imo hasn't been about execution it has been about strategic direction and dynamic partnerships.

What abouting bringing in TI and getting a big company with deep pockets to bank roll the inventions. Why not let apple, microsoft, cisco invest in IDCC? Because they would shut off Harry's gravey train, that's why.

In sports terms get ride of the General Manager (Harry) and let the new GM decide if Uncle Billy is pulling his weight. I think he is.

Harry has taken us to the cleaners

It is amazing how year after year no matter how much money these patents generate the only people who profit are the lawyers and the executives.

If I could continually replenish my shares and keep on selling them why would I care what the share price is. Harry sold 160,000 share in the last 10 months. I'm sure he is in line for a nice chunk of brand new RSU's from the 3 million bright shinny new shares that they somehow got shareholder aprroval in June's meeting.

Hey basketball fans this is what it felt like being a knick fan under Isaih Thomas.

We have a very big disconnect between the Chaiman of the Board and the common shareholder. He feels no pain and can continue to go to his backyard IDCC share tree while the shareholders languish for years without ever getting even a marginal return for their investment.

What happened to the $253 million from Nokia 2g? Well they spent it on a buy back which allowed them to grant more shares to the COB. Great job if you can get it. Where do I sign?

Harry is not an engineer, patent attorney, wireless innovator, computer scientist, successful CEO with a rolerdex of contacts. He is a person who invested in this company like us but on a much larger scale that is riding this gravey train on the backs of all of us shareholders.

Isn't it strange that when the Yankees get rid of the $20 mil a year dead wood first baseman, Jason Giambi, they start wining playoff series?

The shareholders deserve to be rewarded and the only way we can is if this company is lead by a real visionary and dynamic executive who can get things done. Not Harry, who happens to be holding his golden goose position where year after year he can squeeze those eggs out of its ass and sell his shares behind 10b1.

We don't sell because unlike Harry we actually have to pay for our shares.

Jun-09 2,000 Acquisition at $0 per share.
28-May-09 48,000 IDCC Sale at $24.48 - $25.13 per share.
28-May-09 48,000 IDCC Exercise at $4.81 per share.
15-Jan-09 10,000 IDCC Acquisition at $0 per share.
15-Jan-09 10,000 IDCC Sale at $26.87 per share.
18-Dec-08 50,000 IDCC Exercise at $4.31 per share.
18-Dec-08 500 IDCC Sale at $25.86 per share.
18-Dec-08 49,500 IDCC Sale at $25.14 per share.
17-Dec-08 50,000 IDCC Exercise at $4.31 per share.
17-Dec-08 50,000 IDCC Sale at $25.08 per share.
5-Jun-08 8,000 IDCC Acquisition.
15-Jan-08 10,000 IDCC Acquisition at $0 per share.

158,000 sales sold by the COB in the last 10 months. It is nice to have options at $4.81 and shares at $0.

My problem is that everybody in this stock gets fat except the shareholders. The COB gets endless options and RSU's. The lawyers get miliions of dollars in fees. The executives get nice pay packages. Why increase the share price? They can sit around for years using IDCC as the piggy bank. Customers pay the company. The compay uses the money to buy back shares. The company turns around and grants shares to the COB for well he doesn't really have a day to day function but we do need somebody to sit in the chair. After all it is called the Chariman of the Board.

Win or lose this company needs a new COB with a rolerdex and the ability to take this company forward in a dynamic direction. Ten years of sitting still for the shareholders while Harry had 10 years of being able to sell shares and get them replaced.

Bottom line, in my opinion Harry has taken us shareholders to the cleaners.

Happy Anniversary to Me

I'm coming up on 10 years waiting for this story to pan out.

I've got to be honest this STORY is getting real old and real tired. In my household IDCC is a 4 letter word.

It would be nice if IDCC did a joint deal with TI. Hell it would be nice to see this company become more dynamic and creative instead to be all about law suits which is why we are priced here.

I wonder how many shares that the COB and company were granted in my 10 years of holding. I think I saw a post that said it was something like 20 million.

I like the CEO and CFO but I've always wondered what the COB brings to the table. Would the company be better served with an industry executive that has experiance and a rolerdex instead of the silent but richly rewarded COB we have.

I'll just finishs my gripping with this one point. If their ever was a group of shareholders that deserved to be rewarded by an increase in share price it is the shareholders of IDCC.

The problem is that these rewards are not tied to performance of the stock. Instead of having percentage licenced, I'd rather see grants or options given out based on the year over year average share price. Take the average daily price in 2007 and the average daily price in 2008 and if it is higher the bonus is larger. That would be the true meaning of aligning with shareholders. Just like hedge funds. People don't mind paying if they are making money but when the stockholders don't the executives should not be granted huge amounts of free stock compensation.

I don't think we can blame this entire mess on the legal system. Judge Luckern from what I recall basically told both sides to settle, both sides didn't and both sides got decisions they don't like even thoght IDCC got hurt more.

The descision to go to the ITC was a gamble that is not paying off. Nokia put IDCC on the offense and made them spend vauable time defending the patents instead of spending the time proving where Nokia was using the patents.

Do you think OJ would have gotten off if he didn't have Jonny Cocoran?

My problem with these gambles is the 3 million share grant from the last shareholder meeting. So we spend all the Nokia 2G money buying shares to reduce the float and then because they signed a couple of deals we get an 8% increase in float at a cost of $70 million out of sharehoders pockets.

At some point this stocl has to be more then Harry's personal piggy bank and start building real shareholder value.

Insurance.

For the first time in my 10 years on holding this saga stock I'm buying put insurance.

IDCC Aug 2009 22.5000 put(OPR: DAQTX.X)

I don't like the all in bet of this Nokia decision.

My problem is I starting to get the feeling that Nokia wants a decision. Worst case scenario for Nokia is they will pay the Samsung rate. Best case scenario they wreck the stock yet again and get years and years of more delays with no end in sight.

I hope IDCC bends and lets them get the appropriate discount to Samsung so that they figure out settlement is the best road.

The shareholder yet again is in a tough position. The best thing that can happen to the shareholder is less litagation and more deals.

Here is my price prediction drum roll please++++++++++

I have no freaking clue.

I do beleive that management has made really solid, smart, well thought out moves. It is clear that they understand the market place and have proven that they can adjust to situation (Samsung Deal). Execution wise we really should have no complaints.

The latest downward spiral in a latest of a series of downward spirals is directly related to the 3 million share grant during this years annual meeting. Those 3 million shares almost nulify our last buyback.

They are correct in the thought process that buying back shares prevent manipulation. Problem here is 2 fold. They have never been able to convince the big boys to own this stock and provide 1st tier analyst coverage. Get a Merrill, Goldman, Snith Barney, JPM, or Morgan Stanley analysis cover this stock watch the games go away real fast. and the RSU's.

Don't like to sound like a broken record but the selling of these shares over the years has caused the float to stay in the 40 million range. Plenty of shares for people to short or manipulate. With volume at half the normal rate it does not take much selling to bring thr company down.

Anyway nothing to do but bitch, bend over and say ouch thankyou serve may I have another.

Buybacks do build shareholser value. I think the leadership under Merrit has been outstanding. If this were a chess game he would be Bobby Fisher. One last move on Nokia and hopefully check mate.

The problem is not with management or execution of a business plan that has been done well, the problem is board of directors GREED.

In this case greed is only good for people that receive share grants and options.

These continually expand the shares outstanding while the company buys back shares. They actually neutralize the buy backs to some degree.

Ingvestment professionals are looking for stocks that deliver ROI or return on investment.If options and RSU's were contained over the years the stock price would be different today.

I think Ronnie had posted a 20 million share amout that IDCC related individuals have gotten over the years. That is half the outstanding shares.

Back to the reality all investors want to get paid for taking risk in an investment.

In this stock so far the lawyers on both sides got paid, the company flush with cash got paid, the officers and employees got paid by grants and the only group left out has been investors.

Now I beleive this time shareholders will get paid when Nokia signs but it is easily to understand why the share price is $23 right now.

I forgot one very big group that got paid very, very well during this 10 year court battle with Nokia. The Lawyers on both sides. This fight has been a golden goose for them.

I think $253 million is pretty dam largness.

In my opinion only, IDCC may have had a higher regard for the inventions then what the real market is. Nokia and Samsung have caused IDCC to rethink at least particial what the expected value should be. It is obviously not $2.00 per phone as some of the presentation have stated. I think the Samsung deal was a major break thru and should be a framework for the Nokia deal. It gave me renewed faith that IDCC has finally figured out a bird in hard is worth two in the bush.

These years of law suits and lump sum payments have hurt only one group of people, THE SHAREHOLDERS.

Think about it. From a financial standpoint the company is flush with cash so it is great financial shape.

The officers and board members continue to receive share grants and have made tons of money in the last 10 years.

The shareholders have got squat. If you bought after the ERIC AT $28 you lost $5 a share while the company took in $1 billion dollars in cash/deal $300 LG, $400 SAM, $250 Nok plus RIMM, HTC, NEC, AAPL, SHARP, etc.

So I want this Nokia deal to be for the shareholders who finally deserve to get paid. And I for one will yake .35 to .50 cents or whatever the range is because with out this deal we don't get paid.

Then why did they settle with Qualcomm?

Why did they write a $253 Million dollar check?

The reason that IDCC can not maintain a market cap value above $1.5 billion is plain and simple Litagation Risk.

The markets do not like risk and litagation risk is one of the worst because of the unpredictable nature of the courts. Big money wants no part of court decisions so we have the risk of losing to Nokia partially if not fully priced in.

If/when Nokia/IDCC settle litagation risk is basically gone. IDCC will have no active law suits. What do you think that will doo for the share price.I hope they give Nokia a great deal because then the shareholders will finally get paid.

Reasons for settlement

1. Nokia settled with Qualcomm - I thought Nokia would go to the mat with QCOM last year. They didn't. They create a win-win situation and both companies profited by it. The settlement came on the eve of a trial.

2. IDCC settled with Samsung - I thought Samsung was going to the mat with IDCC. They didn't. They setlled on the eve of a decision. Win/win.

3.No reason not to - Nokia has no reason not to settle. Legal fees are huge for both companies. Settlement money will not be a big drain on Noia's profits. Subtract all the legal costs and it is not worth the fight.

4. IDCC substantial progress 8K - Merrit is an honest guy. He has never given a reason for me not to beleive him. Nokia came off zero dollar. That was substantial. Like the old joke when the man asks the woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She say yes. He says how about $10. She says what kind of Girl do you think I am. He says we already established that now we are just workking on price. Once a deal was offered it became about price.

No News No Carpenter

Nothing going on here except waiting for the judge. What possible comments can Carpenter add without a crystal ball? What possible comments can anyone add?

Nokia wanted this validation argument in a court. They made this very clear for the last 10 years. IDCC wanted no part of court decisions since Motorola and the 8 year? Erisson mess.

The deal will be made with Nokia paying less per unit than anyone else and with IDCC recognizing Nokia TDD controbutions as well as any other major contribution relevant to this deal.

When it is done (I hope). Long term shareholders will scream saying that IDCC caved and we gave away the farm. Just cut and paste the response from the Samsung deal. P.S.Anybody want to guess what the share price would be now if we didn't settle with Samsung. Can you say $13?

Carpenter has been more right then wrong. He just doesn't sing the $1.50 per unit song that many of us have been dreaming/wishing for since Bill put it on a Chart.

He is also not a big fan of Harry who in my opinion has his fingerprints on the latest 3 million share dilution vote during this years meeting. I can't single out IDCC for being greedy and self serving. Every company's board of directories are designed that way. All those in favor of giving us money say I. The "I"'s have it.

I do have confidence in Miller. He seems intelligent and understands the market and the space. I think the Samsung deal was brilliant and the single best deal IDCC ever made. It weighted the risks vs. the rewards and took into account the current market metrics.

This is not 1997 and IDCC is not QCOM. Nokia not going to just hand IDCC tons of money based on patent declarations. IDCC should not just endlessly hold out for money they will never get and start building permanent shareholder value.

I'm sick of 10 years worth of yoyo prices and everyone else is to. The story is now a saga which no one wants to hear. Put up or shut up.

So .35 to .50 cents per Carpenters report? Where do I sign?
I want to be like a member of the board of directors and be asked all those in favor of finally putting money in shareholdrs pockets say "I"

And hopefully this time the I's have it.

Carpenter downgrade makes no sense.

We all are entitled to our opinions but a downgrade to neutral makes no sense unless he feels a negative event (Nokia loss?) is on the horizon. Normally I've been a supporter and defender of TC but this one really baffles me.

By adding an extra $25 million of no cost revenue IDCC clearly deserves a higher trading value without Nokia, SNE or Mot. Downgrades are usually given for expected poor performance. In this case I beleive Carpenter is acting a little too cute for my tastes trying to predict trading ranges and market reactions to events like buybacks or business sales.

The Samsung deal was a major advancement for this company. Solid revenue and earnings for years to come. Reduced litagation risk exposure and basically leaving Nokia in a indefensable position (IMO). So with RIMM, APPL, SAM, LG, NEC, HTC, etc all signed Nokia basically needs a smoking gun to win this ITC hearing. Samsung must has smelt something to conceed at the last minute and I doubt whether Nokia wants to go back to this judge after all the tricks they pulled last year.

Also, does he beleive that RIMM and APPL revenue will stay flat?

I fully understood last years downgrade when IDCC told us the ITC hearing was going to be a slam dunk and it wasn't but this one is just plain wrong.