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.
Re: the EU investigating Samsung for abuse of FRAND
They investigated Qualcomm for several years over the same issue, then decided not to file a formal proceeding. I predict the same result here, as FRAND issues must be resolved through bilateral negotiations, or by the courts.
If I were working for a company that has announced it is for sale, I'd be discreetly exploring alternative places to work. There is a real risk that the company could be sold for its patents, and many or all employees sent packing on short notice. In this economy, that's especially threatening to one's ability to support one's family.
What concerns me more, is that Qualcomm yesterday stated they have over 200 royalty bearing 3G licenses, and 13 stand alone OFDM/4G licenses. Why is the IDCC portfolio licensed on such a small scale?
Care to cite me your Federal legal authority for the proposition that the parties can delay an appellate decision, "under seal", or otherwise?
Without reaching the 10% threshhold, there is no other word for all this Apple speculation, but dreaming.
Then why doesn't Apple appear in the "10% list"?
It isn't even possible that the CAFC is holding the decision for any business purpose of InterDigital or Nokia.
Your $6 figure, if accurate, must be split-adjusted, so it's a deceptive number. And, the pivotal Ericsson settlement was nothing like IDCC's efforts to settle with Nokia. The Ericsson deal resulted in the acknowledgement that WCDMA required Qualcomm's pioneering, foundational CDMA IPR, and Ericsson's agreement to push WCDMA before the standards setting organizations, at a time when Ericsson claimed to have "invented" WCDMA. In the same arrangement, Ericsson took over Qualcomm's money bleeding infrastructure division. The IDCC case against Nokia is simply a claim that Nokia's standards based products intersect IDCC's IPR - i.e., a vanilla patent dispute.
That was CDMA and that was 1994. Qualcomm was fine with inserting a 10MHz limitation for the patent they got from InterDigital, because Qualcomm had pioneered CDMA and knew the signal couldn't be spread that wide. They were right, as it never was.
Mickey, you have no clue about that 10MHz CDMA crap. No one has nor ever will commercialize CDMA in carriers greater than 10MHz. Even WCDMA/UMTS/HSPA use only 5MHz carriers. To get more bandwidth they aggregate carriers, they don't spread the signals in carriers of greater than 10MHz. LTE doesn't use CDMA, rather it uses OFDMA and SC-FDMA. Qualcomm, through Flarion, developed mobile OFDMA, that can be used in wider pipes (>10MHz), for 4G and beyond.
Why would such a rumor be spread the day before options expire? Oh, I get it.
Already been written - "The Qualcomm Equation", by Dave Mock.
Garbage in, garbage out. First, royalties are computed on "wholesale" ASP's, not "retail". Second, IDCC has never achieved even a 1% royalty, and has always had difficulty signing and keeping licensees at sub 1% rates. Why not assume a 10% royalty rate, or that King of Prussia lives in the land of the midnight sun?
Dozer, it has never been my position that Nokia owes IDCC nothing. I merely pointed out to an exuberant neophyte that Nokia has not been yet adjudged to owe IDCC anything, in a court of law. It's in court where such things are determined, absent an agreement. That's why it is not Nokia appealing the ITC claims construction and decision.
Naw. 15 years, all standards. Patent peace. If you license one patent, you've licensed them all.
QCOM has a 15 year cross-license with Nokia, covering all standards. They would get $0 more from Nokia if they bought IDCC. And so far, Nokia hasn't been found to owe IDCC anything.
Nobody mentions TXN because they are nearly finished with their exit from the radio baseband business, and they seem ready to sell their apps processor business. Forget TXN.
In all fairness, Jim, did you expect him to tell prospective purchasers, and the market, that Nortel's patents were more valuable than his? We won't know until it's over, what was puffery, and what was reality. The absence of even a single Tier 1 LTE licensee, together with their 3G licensing track record, suggest one should remain cautiously optimistic, but not overconfident.
Samsung has plenty of FRAND controlled patents - far more than Apple. It's Apple's design patents, not their standards based, that have drawn Samsung blood.
Do we know for certain that any company "approached" IDCC concerning an acquisition, or was it simply the Nortel result that motivated management to determine its patent portfolio market value?
I concur, based upon 38 years of litigation practice.
You must be joking. If there is no buyout, you have a company with declining earnings, lack of renewals (e.g. LG), no new licenses of size being signed, and multiple litigation risks. The current price reflects uncertainty surrounding the prospects and valuation for a sale of assets. Those expecting more than $100/share, if a deal is done, are headed for disappointment, IMO. A likely ballpark is $70-$100.(Disclosure - I am and have been only long.)
One glaring misstatement made in that post pertains to Infineon's "sole" license from InterDigital. Infineon has a Qualcomm license, and likely many others.
It is both unnecessary, and unproductive, to try to rationalize what a rumour site has cryptically published about secret corporate negotiations. The only known certainty is that the process is incomplete, and each of us must reach his own conclusion as to whether that's a positive, neutral, or negative fact. Personally, I jumped on the opportunity the market served up, by (prematurely) buying shares in the upper 48's, as they sunk. Others obviously sold. That's what makes markets, and why there are no sure things. Good luck to all.
More immediately, the LG Revolution LTE phone sold at Verizon, from a former 3G licensee who has failed to renew and extend to 4G, is more troubling. We are approaching a year without re-signing.I think that's a factor in putting the company up for sale.It's bad enough failing to get any major new licensees in months, but inability to retain those already licensed is more disconcerting. (Note, I am entirely long IDCC, and bought more shares yesterday.)
Naw. Their $2.5 bil/yr R&D spending has already produced a dominant position. Qualcomm will not be the buyer.
Don't worry about cash reserves. Including their offshore money, they have approx. $20 bil, and generate billions in free cash flow annually. The reason why I am skeptical that QCOM will be the acquirer, and always have been, is that Qualcomm's business model is "license one, get them all". The only strategic reason that's plausible to me is purely defensive, and to maximize leverage at renewal time with licensees. I just don't think that's enough to justify entering a frothy bidding war, but we'll have to wait and see.
As an IDCC shareholder, I don't care who the buyer is, as long as they overpay.
Multiple "bidders", or multiple "inquirers"? What we do know is IDCC's worth is only the strategic value of its patents, to others who make stuff.As of this point in time, there's no evidence of even one bidder.
They listened!
If they lose in the CAFC, or fail to win at the ITC after winning at the CAFC, and don't quickly sign Nokia, they ought to consider putting up the IPR for sale to the highest bidder(s), and distributing all assets to the shareholders.
Which part of "in addition to" was unclear?
In addition to the unexpectedly high Nortel portfolio price, I think Friday's action reflects relief that IDCC didn't win any part of the auction, and won't be spending that money.
Trailing P/E's show you where you've been, but the market evaluates where you're going. We will be rewarded with a higher P/E when the market believes the future revenue stream will show robust growth, and reliability. Re-signing LG and soon Samsung, and new licenses with major players, will unleash the potential we all know exists.
No. Royalties are commonly based upon the wholesale, not retail, price.
So Nokia's willingness to accept cash and ongoing royalties from Apple, suggests to you they have changed their stance on delaying paying money to IDCC?
The only meaningful way to value a patent portfolio is by how much sophisticated licensees are willing to pay for it, and how successful the licensor is at obtaining signatures on those documents. During such bilateral negotiations, both parties have the benefit of the best engineering and legal advice they can find, and perform appropriate due diligence. In short, it is the ease and value of monetization that determine the commercial importance of one's patent portfolio. All other speculation, rhetoric, counting, and bravado is meaningless.
Unfortunately, IDCC's history has been troublesome, both as to their ability to license, and the terms agreed to.
Si vis pacem parabellum - if you want to see peace, prepare for war.
The CAFC "win", should it materialize, is only a second bite at the ITC apple, with no assurance that the trial judge would reach a different judgment upon retrial. Too many seem to assume a CAFC win would in and of itself beat Nokia on the substantive allegations, when all it would do is keep the ITC action alive. While we play with a declining Nokia, the growing infringers are given safe harbor. It is long past time to file a comprehensive case against all the major holdouts, then settle with them one by one.
Huawei pays QCOM for all CDMA technologies - CDMA2000,WCDMA and extensions, and TD-SCDMA _ at what QCOM calls their "world standard rate", commonly reported as approx. 5%.
The point was, that's why Sequans and IDCC trade differently.