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.
Mschere, Qualcomm has been recording 3G royalties for over a year or more. If IDCC has royalty bearing IPR in all 3G standards then why are they so far behind Qualcomm in accounting for these royalties?
Hint: It's not that IDCC considers CDMA2000 as 2.5G. Contrary to IDCC bulls long-time contention that all narrowband CDMA was 2.5G technology, we now see that even Interdigital puts CDMA2000 squarely in 3G. So why the disparity in royalties?
Once
Any investor who want to improve their returns would do well to follow in the footsteps of the worlds most successful investor and take these words to heart:
Be wary of management and analyst projections
While Buffett values outstanding managers very highly, he evaluates them himself and has no use for their projections: "Almost everything we learn is from public documents.... We do not find it particularly helpful to talk to managements.... The numbers tell us a lot more than the managements. We don't give a hoot about anyone's projections. We don't want even want to hear about it."
Thanks for bringing that here Wilco, I had read it yesterday but had forgot to apply it to IDCC.
Once
Art, you must mean post #23297 because 23397 hasn't happened yet!
Once
Frank, I never claimed there was an IDCC employee posting here but I do admit that it's possible. Do you deny that?
I find the amount of time people are spending defending those who want to fill the piggies trough back up rather surprising.
Once
Matt, thanks for taking such an active interest insuring that opinions are not stated as facts. I think our introduction to the IDCC board is much improved now that the "I am unaware of any company employees that participate... " was added.
It's important for people to speak concisely and say what they mean. Even then plenty of misunderstandings can happen.
Once
Mschere, Tom Carpenter is already counting uncertain revenue from Nokia and Samsung for 2H03 but you want him to add in even more uncertain revenue? I think he's already pushing his credibility to limit counting that 2H03 revenue before the agreements are finalized. I base this upon IDCC's spotty record when it comes to achieving expected results.
Additionally, I predict these agreements are not finalized for a long, long time. I base that upon IDCC's past history also, everything seems to take longer than the time frame hinted at by managements riddles. I see no reason to expect that to change suddenly.
Once
Mschere, it sounds like you may know of some former IDCC employees who participate here? I would find that very interesting.
Once
I agree, that would solve the problem of misrepresentation as long as Jim remembered to update the statement as soon as he became aware of any employees participating. However, the introduction is written in third person and your suggestion is written in first person so that would not really work unless Jim credited the statement with his name.
Judging by the historical secrecy that has surrounded IDCC, I would say it's likely against company policy to allow employees to post on message boards. However, that doesn't mean that it doesn't (or won't) happen.
Once
Jim, since you are in charge of this board I have a question for you:
In the board Introduction, which I presume was posted by you, it is claimed that "There are no company employees that participate in these board discussions, although they are welcome." My question is, how did you verify this statement and can investors rely on this as a fact or is it just an opinion which is stated as a fact?
The reason I ask is because recently there has been a lot of activity here that appears to support the financial interests of insiders. Can we rely on these opinions to be unbiased by employees of IDCC? If not I suggest the Introduction is changed to reflect this. I say this for your own protection, as IDCC moves higher the potential for loss is greater. If it is learned that company insiders were posting here covertly, you could conceivably be held liable for providing assurances that insiders are not participating.
Once
Ams, if the 5 million extra shares are approved (and I believe they will be), do you see any way that investors can determine the approximate dates that the bulk of these options would be based on (for purposes of determining strike price)?
I ask because I see a potentially very profitable IDCC play here if one assumes that the share price will once again work to managements benefit and be low to achieve a low strike price. What do you think?
Once
A little frosty? Is that all?
If C.Horn and MMMary is all ya got, I'm feeling pretty frosty about your review!
Yadda, yadda, I don't agree with a lot of what you write either. What are you going to do, sue me? That should be fun.
Once
You already know who two are and there are two more who have contacted me through private e-mail. I'm afraid I would be abusing their confidence by spilling the beans without their approval.
And you still insist I force things down peoples throat. Matt, you have a lot to learn about "force" You are the only person here with absolute power and that's why it's so notable when you abuse it. But I can't force anything on anyone, your insistence that I can is what gives away your bias.
Think about it.
Once
Yeah, because I don't candy-coat the true nature of IDCC, which is basically a tax collector on other peoples ideas. IDCC's CEO is a friggin' patent attorney. Chew on that patent or I'll sue you. What? You don't think you infringe that patent? I'll take you to court anyway. You can pay me now or pay your attorneys later...And on and on.
Anyone who doesn't see that is blind.
Once
Matt, I didn't start my "negative campaign" when I came to iHub. I was warning people to get out when it was over $36 dollars in 2000 which was right before it went to $4 and change. I recommended buys at $4 and change, $6 and change and $8 and change. And I've profited to the tune of well over $20,000 (before taxes) all on the long side. So I'm not completely negative on IDCC, only in comparison to the hopelessly dreamy longs who have been planning the Houston $100 party for over three years now.
As to your perspective that I shove my views down peoples throats, nothing could be further from the truth, I invite people who have bad reactions to my posts to put me on ignore! You are too much!
I have plenty of respect and support from people who read my posts, but you can bet they are not the same rabid IDCC longs that are always increasing your workload with their TOU violations!
Once
Matt, if you think IDCC has such a great chart maybe you should become a shareholder, LOL! What's your target? $82? $1000? The sky's the limit you know. Just don't become the designated bag-holder!
Let me know how many shares you get. With your pumping ability, you might even get it up to $34 before it comes back down.
Once
Bulldzr, I'm glad you brought that up! I think EconEli has been making a lot of sense and is well-spoken. I wish I could say the same for the rest. He sums up the whole issue quite nicely with this:
"Why? It is a matter of right and wrong. "Right" as a shareholder is anything that increases your investments worth legally, and "wrong" is anything that decreases your investments worth."
If only everyone could think so clearly and cut through the bull.
Once
Chipster, that's some mighty exciting predictions you have presented there!
"you know what nobody is talking about? our asics!!!! royalties there will make phone $'s look like peanuts!! buyout at 250 by Q...my prediction!!!"
You noticed that too? That no one is talking about the "system on a chip" ASIC? I thought everyone had forgot. It must be ready to be released by now. You know, Qualcomm announces their new ASIC releases about 9 months or so in advance of commercial availability, as soon as the feature set and specs are nailed down. I bet IDCC will take a different approach. Why? Well, it must be almost ready since they've been working on it for four years now. I bet it will take the handset market by storm, LOL!
Once
Jim, I wouldn't be so sure your point is valid:
"To all----Insiders sell we bitch and shares go up after selling we don’t say we were wrong?"
Probably best to withhold judgement on this until we see if IDCC is going up or down in the big picture. You see, many of the insiders sold a lot of shares very close to the top, even still.
"Rip" Tilden sold over 30,000 shares at prices above $22.
Harry Campagna sold over 7,000 shares at prices above $22.
Mark Lemmo sold 30,000 shares at prices above $23/share.
Considering that IDCC doesn't typically hang out above $22 for long, I'd say that's some pretty good selling!
Once
Long lost history files located! A little sleuthing is all it took! Those who want to know how inaccurate the information at Telecomtechstocks has been in the past should check out this archived webpage:
http://tinyurl.com/b1l5
Save this page to your hard-drive before those who wish to obscure the past work to have it removed like they did after I posted a different link to it last week. Read this page carefully to understand how a little hype can make people buy a stock they would normally never touch.
Once
Exactly, and therein lies the problem with approving 5 million more options:
"I believe the only way options would issued at $4 and $5 in the future is if the share price goes back down to those levels again."
Once 5 million more options are approved, it is in the insiders best interest to have the stock price go back down for the issuance of those options. Those who claim approval of insider options align managements interests with those of shareholders have failed to consider the option grant phase of the cycle.
Once
Ams, I think you are one of the most realistic IDCC posters out there. I do have one question about your scenario:
"In order to have the 5 million give away passed safely, it will be necessary for the management to mount a campaign plan.
Perhaps they will do the following.
1. Hire a PR company to promote the option plan on message boards.
2. Issue a small piece of good news, say the renewal of the Sharp licence, without giving away any financial details on confidentiality grounds, of course."
Are you assuming that management doesn't already have this ballot measure in the bag due to large numbers of institutions who are in bed with IDCC? My observations lead me to believe IDCC will not have to pull any rabbits out of the hat to have this options giveaway passed. It's a done deal.
Still, it will reflect poorly on shareholders when it passes. Believe me, it will pass!
Once
Please tell us, how could my comments affect the value of IDCC?
"You, on the other hand, could be accused of making insulting and disparaging remarks about IDCC, with perhaps a personal agenda of diminishing its value to where you believe it should be."
That comment simply makes no sense.
Once
Sophist, my guess is they are saving the request of shareholder authorization to expand the number of shares to accommodate a possible stock split for a future date. Right now the shares are trading in their high range. Once shareholders approve more insider options and the price is about half what it is now, and all those new options are granted with low strike prices, then, and only then, will you see them play that card.
Of course they wouldn't dare actually split the shares because many institutions are required to sell stocks as they drop below $5.
Once
Sophist, you are actually arguing for more options?
If this ballot measure passes it will not place IDCC shareholders in a favorable light. In fact, I would be willing to bet that IDCC shareholders will become the laughing stock of the investment community for approving even more shares for the pigs at the trough.
I wonder how many who make the argument that more options are good for shareholders are actually pawns of insiders who can't wait to get their hands on more grub?
Once
Nieves, any idea what stage the development of IDCC's "system on a chip" is in? I recall they started development in 1999. You would think after 3-4 years they would have a product ready? This industry moves very fast. If it takes them that long, the product will be out-dated before they offer it to the market.
What's going on?
Once
I agree Mickey. For me this is the bottom line: If IDCC is such the great get-rich company that so many dreamers claim it is, then why not let the employees get rich the same way as everyone else, namely by investing their own hard-earned money into IDCC and leaving it there until it pops? The way the insiders sell off their shares as they are exercised one would assume they know it's not ever going to amount to much so they might as well get the money while the getting is good.
Should we do as IDCC insiders say or should we do as they do?
Once
Wow, it looks like that link has been removed from the time machine archive. I checked out the site and found this statement:
"While we collect publicly available Internet documents, sometimes authors and publishers express a desire for their documents not to be included in the Collections (by tagging a file for robot exclusion or by contacting us or the original crawler group). If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in our Collections, then we may remove that portion of the Collections without notice."
Hmmm... considering that the link worked last week before iHub deleted it, I would have to guess the archived telecomtechstocks pages were so embarrassing the author requested their removal!
I believe I have a lead on obtaining fresh copies, will follow up later.
Once
Speaking of History, anyone interested in the history of telecomtechstocks and the accuracy of the "information" they publish, may want to step through the door of this personal web time machine and travel back in time:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000309073428/www.telecomtechstocks.com/focusstock/ratio.htm
Just read through and see who has been more accurate, the bulls or the bears? Enjoy the trip and remember, this is no place to carry out any serious due diligence, you have been warned!
Once
Derf, I agree, not only is it monotonous but it's repetitive.
However, that's not a good reason to just stand idle while you watch the rules being applied grossly unevenly. Ams was treated much worse than the other offenders, it was plain to see.
Once
This has nothing to do with IDCC, it's about the rules being applied in a lopsided manner.
Once
I agree AMS, it was most unfair. Your opponents were all over you and you held your high ground until one or two posts that may have been TOU violations but not nearly as bad as what Art and the others were saying.
I had no idea you were terminated. I thought you were just in jail and that was unfair. It appears iHub has less tolerance for those who say negative things about IDCC while letting the IDCC bulls get away with a few days in the slammer or a slap on the wrist. A double standard I would say.
You were one of the best posters, always bringing interesting things to the table, not just carrying the party line. Speaking of party, when is that Houston $100? I thought it was supposed to be a couple of years ago.
Once
I think it will be more than 5% but let's assume you are correct:
"The other 5% or so that are GSM-only in nature will be ultra low cost types of handsets; hence, the amount of money lost there will be minimal."
I don't know when 5% is considered minimal. And if it's so minimal then why wouldn't Ericsson have agreed to pay a couple more years? My guess is GSM-only handsets will still be at least 10% of the market in three years. That's nothing to sneeze at and it could be a lot more than that if WCDMA stumbles a little more.
Once
No. Why would I point out the negatives of a child? Certainly not to the child and only if it was done for constructive purposes. Discussion of negatives can be a very positive thing. Ask those who questioned Enron's accounting practices and bailed before the stock price crashed.
I don't know why you need to bring children into it to try to prove your point. That is the obvious sign that your perspective won't stand on it's own merit.
Once
I will post a negative comment if I feel there is an aspect of IDCC that is not fully understood or that has not been fully discussed.
Once
You twist the truth:
However for you to say, " I will not make any positive comments on IDCC because it would simply reiterate what others already contribute", is simply inconsistent with the fact that you allow yourslf to reiterate negative comments that you AND others say and have said over the years.
I never said that, you are putting words into my mouth. Now enough of this. It looks like we both understand I have the right to post mostly the negatives of IDCC while still keeping a balanced perspective.
Once
GBR, in my opinion a "credible" poster is one who brings up credible perspectives and supports them with facts, not someone who makes sure half of his posts are positive and half are negative!
Once
Ed, I was specifically referring to the 5-15% that will still be only 2G-2.5G. Don't try to confuse the issue with dual-mode. Right now Ericsson isn't even paying IDCC for TDMA or GSM phones if they also have 3G functionality and we don't even know how much they are paying for those that don't.
Once
You really have missed my point. I have no need to try to prove that I'm balanced, I'm simply trying to add some balance to the discussion. What is so hard about that for you to understand?
Once
You must have missed my point: The positives of IDCC are more than adequately covered without me adding to them one bit.
Once
Thanks for affording that 3Gdollars. I do believe I recall that as well, but I'll just take your word for it. I just wonder why they didn't try to license for a longer period. To me it reflects upon the strength (or lack of it) of their IPR, how could it not?
Just trying to be rational here,
Once