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.
The key to successful negotiation is to put more chips on the table to negotiate over. The more you have, the more you are likely to have left at end of the process. IDCC just raised their anti and place more chips on the table.
Thanks Gio, I hope their goose is finally cooked. I liked the question from the judge about "When is the last time you were paid anything from Samsung - 1996!"
After all - the purpose of arbitration is to save both time and money, and the arb. panel decides how much weight to give to the evidence before them, and that panel included a Samsung pick.
It would be nice if this judge realizes they had made some choices that placed them on a certain track w.r.t the MFL, and puts an end to there merry-go-round game playing.
Management is already bracing everyone in anticipation of a negative Pumphrey decision, and with the spin everyone knows Nokia will put on it - whether they win or loose, I would be holding buyback powder until after that decision is announced if it's coming soon.
OT: glad your getting back in strong, and good luck to you. I'm in and holding on tight.
Jimlur, and just a few bullet-points down is a Kudo to you about management putting a few of their own tokens in the pot.
Jimlur, It is quite obvious in Tom's report that Loophole's contributions and opinions are highly valued not only by the board, but by Tom Carpenter and likely other analysts and interested parties (like NOKIA and Samsung lawyers sleuthing the board for crumbs all the time...).
The bullet-point in Tom's report about the UK lawsuit as being excessive lawyering and a waste of shareholder's money for the shareholders of both corporations is a testament to just how lucky we are to have him post his legal opinions.
I'm not trying to take away anything from any of the other valued legal eagle's on the board at all, but Tom Carpenter adopting that opinion was an obvious Kudo to Loophole in my opinion. I'm a big fan of Gohrs also, and wish he would post as frequently, as he weighs in with amazing legal insights and is a talented communicator, and there are many more posters that could be similarly mentioned.
I hope introduction of the term "past economic phase of negotiations" was not introduced in this conference call because it's a new measurement for success for management bonus purposes. If so, that would be a crock...MO
Right now - it doesn't
I'm just pointing out one convenient benefit of the buybacks nd not suggesting now is the time for a stock split by any means. However, if be ever start getting the revenue predicted in their investor presentation, a split will be in the future because there are not that many shares floating to begin with.
Doesn't the end result of all these buybacks put enough authorized stock back in their control to execute a stock split without having to amend bylaws and authorize more shares? That would be a welcome announcement once the revenue is proven and flowing for 3G.
I think the appropriate course of action for IDCC is to determine if there are now two separate and distinct groups of patents that lend themselves as stand-alone against either MOT and/or ERICY. If MOT and ERICY want to play wait and see, we need to be able to demonstrate that our war-chest has more than four patents, so let's get them going through either the ITC queue or a good ole texas rocket docket on a limited set of patents that we know they are infringing. To me it would send a message that we mean to collect for our IPR on 3G.
Any positive results coming out of the NOK/SAM case would be a sure indication that there would be advantage for the remaining companies to come to a pre-trial settlement in the form of a convenience license for ALL of our IPR. A negative ruling in NOK/SAM would be mitigated because we have a further line-up of our patents being asserted, that after all is the strength of a war-chest and could further be applied against the big four or five once ANY are resolved favorably. We have the goods OR we don't...if all is truly not about Nokia, then let's not set up our legal strategy to become ALL ABOUT NOKIA! Let's not play the same game that was played in 2G where we didn't take the fight forward vigourously enough to get everyone's respect, and didn't have the money to create multiple fronts in the battle.
Many may not agree with this approach, but it's obvious to me that you must put chips on the table to win at this game and now that they have just combined NOK/SAM they have just created a single front, and we should have a legal strategy that has multiple fronts. I do not think we should base the outcome of a 2 year game on only 4 patents when we have a warchest that could be put in the pipeline. After-all that's what it is - a pipeline that must be passed through to collect. And by the way, have we taken any actions that demonstrate a spine to collect on our TD-SCDMA IPR for which we are founding members on the forum for the technology?
Nothing like stirring the pot
Where's Olddog when ya need him He would find it in a jiffee...
Broadcom unveils integrated 3G chip, shares rise
Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:15am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKN1535294020071015?rpc=44
NEW YORK, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Chipmaker Broadcom Corp (BRCM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Monday it had developed an integrated third-generation (3G) high-speed wireless cell phone chip ahead of bigger rivals Texas Instruments Inc (TXN.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Qualcomm Inc (QCOM.O: Quote, Profile, Research), sending Broadcom shares up as much as 3 percent.
Shares of Texas Instruments and Qualcomm both fell more than 1 percent after Broadcom said it developed a single chip with a baseband -- the cell phone's main processor -- and a radio receiver as well as FM radio and Bluetooth, a short-range technology used for wirelessly linking handsets to headsets.
Stifel Nicolaus analyst Cody Acree raised his price target for Broadcom stock to $48 from $40, saying that the new chip helped legitimize efforts by Broadcom, a small wireless player, to increase its share of the mobile phone chip market.
"This solution is the first of its kind at the 3G level," and appears to put it "at least several months" ahead of rivals such as Texas Instruments, Acree said in a note to clients.
Broadcom said the chip was immediately available for customers to test and would cost $23 at high volumes .
Acree said the chip also posed a competitive threat to other wireless chip makers including Infineon Technologies AG (IFXGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and privately held rivals NXP and Freescale.
In comparison to TI and Qualcomm, which each had about 20 percent of the 2006 mobile phone chip market, Broadcom had a 1.4 percent share, according to data from researcher iSuppli.
Specifically, Acree said he expects the chip to help Broadcom compete with Qualcomm in South Korea, where large Qualcomm customers Samsung Electronics (005930.KS: Quote, Profile, Research) and LG Electronics (066570.KS: Quote, Profile, Research) are based.
Broadcom and Qualcomm have been fighting increasingly bitter legal battles with one case that Qualcomm is appealing involving a government ban on the U.S. import of some phones with Qualcomm chips found to infringe a Broadcom patent.
Shares of Broadcom were up $1.22 at $41.26 on Nasdaq where Qualcomm stock was down 51 cents or 1.2 percent at $41.65. TI shares were down 57 cents or 1.6 percent at $34.82 on New York Stock Exchange. (Reporting by Sinead Carew)
Re: TheGame: I can't really speak to why they waited so long.
At this point, in light of the consolidation attempt by Nokia and Samsung, wouldn't it now be wise to wait until the ITC makes a decision on the proposed consolidation before adding ERICY and MOT to the list of companies? They might even want to either wait until validity and essentiality are determined, or else consider asserting different patents.
I think any company approaches litigation, and putting their portfolio at risk as a last resort, and IDCC jumping on this venue came on the heals of it's effective use by another company, and following a added bonus determination that those selling the product, not just the OEMs could ultimitely find themselves liable for royalties due if the OEM is not licensed.
If key decisions go our way, there might come a time soon when ERICY and MOT will feel the heat to license amicably and honorably.
Mschere, are you speaking of Data Rox?
Just kidding around with you, cause I knew this would get your goat...thought I would stoke the fire since you haven't had an exchange with him today...Sorry to everyone else on the board for doing that
By prefacing the announcement with the earnings announcemnt, it was like sending a Halloween party invitation to the analysts, and there is much to talk about at this Halloween Party. An invitation 20 days out to discuss this, and perhaps more questions and information on the Apple deal. It is a very appropriate timeframe. It gives the buffoons NOK and SAM time to reflect on things as the clock ticks down, and it should be a great Halloween Party. Why give out all the candy early?
This gift will lend some relief to those analysts who have believed, but were made to reflect lately whether they were sticking their necks out too far. I think this will help on the institutional side for investors to stay the course, and some will once again consider this price a buying opportunity.
Say, why not give our new CFO an opportunity to blowout earnings estimates...not a bad way to enter the stage...
w/Apple and Rim, companies like ERICY and MOT must be taking notice and wondering about the legal fees they could save by being an honorable company right about now. It would just be another nail in the coffin of Nokia and Sammy, but certainly not the first. To me, Sammy could not have independently proposed an ICC consolidation without some collusion with Nokia on the proposal. It's been suspected all along they are colluding and sharing a playbook, and Sammy...hasn't Sammy already pleaded guilty of same (price fixing) in other arenas. I can hear the clock ticking louder every day...
On a positive note, As long as folks are signing on the line, for IDCC moving to a practice, like QCOM, of quiet delivery to a growing list of licensees, and delivering increasing EPS, and beating estimates would be OK with me, as long as the delivery is there.
It's no news, and no delivery that gets me. Congratulations to IDCC for this delivery...I would like to hear JP say that management is very happy with the terms of the deal, and hope that they held the line tight enough on terms to make Sammy and Nokia role over in the graves their digging for themselves.
mschere, that behavior makes one think you have a shallowmind. yuk yuk...just kidding around with the pun, mschere...
Revlis, thanks - I think I'm coming around. Thanks for the help!
However, I'll admit that a seven year agreement speaks to a probability this agreement somehow covers 3G iphones.
Not trying to be argumentative...I'm as discouraged as I bet all the Analysts and shareholders are too, who are suffering as IDCC starts playing the close-to-the-vest game with the public again.
It got us in trouble and lost us coverage in the past with analysts because they wanted to be provided enough information to do their numbers and come up with a whisper number.
The more recent accounting changes that were adopted to level out earnings were not the only correction IDCC needed to make, and for awhile anyway, they were pretty good about giving shareholders and the investing community a decent level of transparency, while Friday's information fell short.
I hope they realize it and do something about it.
Revlis, I took the "certain future phones" to be a limiting phrase, perhaps limiting this licence to 2G or 2G & 2.5G, and specifically omitting 3G for future licensing terms. It allows Apple to carry on now, while the details of a 3G agreement are worked out. It's wide open for interpretation, so I don't think you can take it to mean 3G with a high level of confidence. JMHO
~ Wayne
Learningtovest you nailed a very important point. Excellent post.
Loop, I agree with all of what you say about being fed up, but would like to make the point that the practice of over-declaring claims as being common would have been a one-sided claim, made only by IDCC had they not countered with their similar claim, and Nokia would have been all over it. With IDCCs counter-claim their true colors are revealed.
And after us taking this up with the ITC and in the public eye for N75, if they introduce this without a license it will not only be infringement, but it will be willful infringement taking place in the public eye. This beats the tar out of sending some legal letter to the company putting them on notice they are infringing because now everyone else knows it too. Including AT&T!
my3sons87: Looks like a really good reason to me.
Laranger, I drilled into because it shows up fresh today in my ticker news listings on Yahoo, presented at 7:00 a.m. titled: News you need Tuesday Morning April 14th. Ha - and It's Tuesday morning August 14th. I have no explanation for it.
I'm just glad to see them presented as a strong company these days in the news. In the Black Boxes Gone Wild they are once of the good company stocks that traded down for no reason, and now used by The Street as the pick to represent a top takeover target, and mentioned as a company that has patents in every cellphone device made. Now all we need is some more good news and the licensing side - a little respect from the judicial system that should be upholding our patent rights and confirming our arbitration awards would be nice.
Re: I thought about that too after I posted, they may have used a different valuation measurement and I just through something out there to share the link...sorry.
Plugging for someone who will be listing 10 top takeover targest, the newsclip highlighted only InterDigital Communications as a top takeover target, mentioning an easy Scenario for QCOM to "swoop down" and takeover InterDigital for 9 or 10 times earnings.
http://videoplayer.thestreet.com/?clipId=1373_10374101&channel=Market+Updates&cm_ven=YAHOO&a...
Eric, thanks for your high-quality reply and for not taking me to task for being paranoid as it relates to Samsung's newest accusations with the ITC.
Regards, Wayne
In this post you have the curiosity that a wolf in sheeps clothing would posess (Not an accusation). All the lawyers and historians on this site are the greatest thing, and in some scenarios they could be also be less than helpful to their own investment by sleuthing for knowledge that is contrary to the interests of their own investment.
Not that I think IDCC is hiding anything, and I haven't a clue about anything this far back in the common heritage of IDCC and QCOM, but I hate to see the boards braintrust freely doing work for Samsung or Nokia's lawyers on the Interdigital board. It's already known they monitor it, and even have used postings from this board in legal filings.
I do not mean to imply there is any ill intent in your questioning, ERIC, but it seems like a line of questioning or research that would be asked or performed by one of Samsung's or Nokia's lawyers, and I notice NOKIA as one of your favorite investments.
You are obviously very knowledgable, and a skilled sleuth like Oldog - as well as a long-time poster on this board, so I do not mean this as an insult or accusation - those are great questions - I just hate to see research that might only benefit Samsung or Nokia performed freely by those who who are long on IDCC.
Why dig so hard for avenues, or new avenues of support for Samsung's hopefully baseless assertions in concluding a QCOM license is sufficient for their products, or that Interdigital, is bound now through an earlier ETSI membership to not be paid justly for the patents they own?
QCOM just announced expanded x-lic agrmnt w/Nortel
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070315/lath080.html?.v=91
Great post, Eric, and thanks for bringing me up-to-date. It is also encouraging news.
Still a tough call to me. I would be fine with them filing an infringement lawsuit if they would tell me about it in advance so I could get to the sidelines and buy back in cheap. That's the basic risk taken. I would simply like to see IDCC and QCOM tackle this FRAND crap to their advantage, and in absolute fairness to the IPR holders, not a group of operators consorting together to define the law on their own, riding on the coattails of Nokia's arrogance. I would like to see them taken down a few pegs - as it's well deserved.
From Nokia 20-F - This lawsuit, and outcome will have the biggest impact on IDCC and Qualcomm going forward, as Nokia attempts to impose their "self-declared" limit to total FRAND royalties to a cap of 5 percent. What gets me is that they pulled this percentage out of their BUT ts, taking it down from about thirty percent in total for GSM - who in their right minds thinks that this amount is what defines FRAND? - and when lawsuits are still settling for individual companies over just one or a few patents at the 5.5 percent level. There is no basis whatsoever for such a low royalty cap, and the only people who throw it around are industry consultants paid to spew this kind of crap.
In August 2006, Nokia initiated an action in Delaware Chancery Court seeking a declaration that
Qualcomm had breached its licensing obligations concerning declared essential GSM/GPRS/EDGE and
WCDMA patents by failing to offer fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory
(‘‘FRAND’’) terms and
asked the Court to declare that injunctions are unavailable for patents that Qualcomm has voluntarily
declared essential to the ETSI standard setting organization. Nokia has also asked the Delaware Court
to enjoin Qualcomm from requesting injunctive relief in the actions Qualcomm has filed outside the
United States involving patents it voluntarily declared essential to ETSI. In addition, Nokia has
requested the Court to specify the proper framework for determining the FRAND terms and to order
specific performance requiring Qualcomm to negotiate in good faith based on the FRAND framework
as determined by the Court. Qualcomm has moved to dismiss this action on multiple bases, which
Nokia has refuted, and the parties are currently waiting for the Court to issue its ruling. Trial is
scheduled for July or August 2007. Nokia will continue to vigorously defend its rights in this action.
112
Re: Revlis,
Same terms but they got their money sooner. A bird in the had is better than two in the bush. And it's past - they can now go for round two.
I don't see how anyone can do anything beyond speculation as to which was the better deal? Even with hindsight - it's still not clear.
Not OT: And not whining or even wanting it to be a topic (i'm lurking), just an example that shareholder's DO count, and DO have an ownership interest in a company and CAN make a difference in matters of excess that is dilutive, or not in the interest of shareholder value.
For IDCC, of course, options abuse and RSUs would be the topic of interest, but EXIT packages may apply as well.
Quote of the Day...on silver lining..."At least the shareholders spoke up"
Is this year to burst CEO pay balloon? By ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writer
Fri Feb 9, 6:47 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_bi_ge/executive_pay_solutions
NEW YORK - Will Robert Nardelli and Henry A. McKinnell do for executive pay what Enron Corp. did for corporate governance? Just as Enron Corp.'s meltdown led to tougher corporate governance regulations, the eye-popping packages those executives received when they exited CEO jobs at Home Depot and Pfizer have caused everyone from President Bush to professional compensation consultants to suggest runaway pay needs to be reined in.
ADVERTISEMENT
The topic is shaping up to be the No. 1 issue at this year's annual meetings of public companies.
Investor activists are buzzing about potential solutions, including shareholder advisory votes on executive pay packages and the end to provisions that give executives huge windfalls when companies are sold. And a handful of companies have shown a new willingness to talk to advocates about pay changes.
"There's a sort of silver lining to the whole Nardelli, Home Depot thing," said Chicago-based compensation consultant Donald Delves. "At least the shareholders finally spoke up."
Nardelli left Home Depot Inc. in January after months of shareholder complaints about his pay and the lagging performance of the company's stock versus home improvement competitor Lowe's Cos. And McKinnell's exit from Pfizer Inc. in July came 19 months earlier than expected in part due to growing shareholder anger about what had been disclosed about his lucrative retirement package.
But the true shock came when the details later emerged about just how large their severance deals were: Nardelli's was valued at about $210 million and McKinnell's came to almost $200 million, according to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The packages were enough to warrant attention from Bush, who said in a speech on Wall Street last month that corporate board members must step up to their responsibilities. "You need to pay attention to the executive compensation packages that you approve," he said.
Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is expected to introduce legislation on the issue. Frank said in a January speech at the National Press Club that high CEO pay is "not just a matter of envy. It has reached a point where it has some macroeconomic significance."
Frank pointed to research done by Harvard professor Lucian Bebchuk showing that compensation of the top five officers at the country's public companies between 1993 and 2002 totaled about $250 billion — nearly 10 percent of aggregate profits. CEO pay grew by a median 11.29 percent in 2005, according to The Corporate Library, which tracks governance, compensation and performance.
Bebchuk, co-author of the book "Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation," has become a frequently-cited source for information in proxy pay proposals. He's also started filing proposals himself on director pay at companies including Walt Disney Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has submitted "say on pay" proposals, asking for a nonbinding yes-or-no shareholder vote on pay packages at companies including Citigroup Inc., Wachovia Corp., Ingersoll-Rand Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Countrywide Financial Corp.
"I think it's a rare board that's going to ignore it's owners," said Timothy Smith, director of socially responsive investment at Walden Asset Management, which manages about $1.5 billion.
About 10 companies, including Pfizer, Intel Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Schering-Plough Corp., American International Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Colgate-Palmolive have formed a working group with AFSCME and Walden to discuss shareholder approval of pay packages. They met Friday at the offices of TIAA-CREF, which manages $406 billion.
Such a system, used in the United Kingdom, would not give shareholders a vote on pay. But it would allow them to bring nonbinding confidence or no-confidence vote on reported executive pay, letting shareholders either ratify or say no to the pay package an executive has already received.
"Only a handful" of pay packages in the UK have not been approved by shareholders, said Jeffrey N. Gordon, a law professor at Columbia University at a Thursday presentation to the New York Society of Security Analysts. One package that wasn't approved was from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, where shareholders were particularly upset about a "golden parachute" package for the CEO.
"In response to shareholder pressure, it was cut by two-thirds," Gordon said.
Other solutions are coming from companies themselves. While Ben & Jerry's is the best known example of a company where executive pay is a multiple of employee pay, DuPont Co. has used the same standard for the last decade, with the target cash compensation for the CEO set at about twice that of an executive vice president. The company also pays modest bonuses, considering its size.
The practice started under CEO Edgar S. Woolard, who retired in 1995. In a video message posted online, he pleaded with executives to ratchet down pay as a way to restore public trust in corporate leaders. He argued against what he calls the "myths" used to justify high CEO pay, including the idea that CEO pay is driven by competition.
"To that, I say, 'Bull,'" he said. "CEO pay is driven by the outside consultant surveys and the fact that your CEO in your company has to be at least in the top half and maybe in the top quartile."
DuPont did not make Woolard available for interviews.
More than anything, this is an issue for corporate boards, said John C. Wilcox, senior vice president and head of corporate governance at TIAA-CREF. "We don't want to micromanage the internal decisions of the company's management."
One reason Home Depot's Nardelli got the rich pay package he did was because his hiring was a "hail Mary pass" by a company that was in "dire straits," said Ken Bertsch, executive director and head of corporate governance at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, at an event Monday hosted by Institutional Shareholder Services.
By contrast, companies that grow their own talent avoid the CEO star search — and the major league pay that comes with it. Michael L. Eskew, CEO of United Parcel Service Inc., has been with the company since he graduated from Purdue University's industrial engineering program in 1972. He earned about $2.5 million in 2005, outside options — and the 33,993 shares underlying his options aren't staggering.
As boards set goals for pay, they need to look harder at performance data.
"This is pretty simple stuff," said Delves. "If you want pay at the 75th percentile, you better have performance in the 75th percentile. It's not hard to figure out."
On the Net: For Woolard's video message: http://www.compensationstandards.com/nonmember/EdWoolard_video.asp