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.
Loop, any reason, in your opinion, that IDCC couldn't announce additional revenues due to 3G from Apple after Apple releases the new iphone Monday? IMO, the reason they have not said more about the Apple license is because S. Jobs wanted to keep the veil of secrecy in place. However, I think it's pretty well accepted by now that the new iphone will be 3G. If there are additional moneys to come, (a reasonable assumption) what would be the reason to keeping the silence after Apple's release? For IDCC, it would serve a purpose of subliminally sending the message to NOK and Samsung that "We CAN hold out for the right deal" while at the same time reassuring present and future investors on IDCC's prospects going forward.
gatticaa, IMO, one of the reasons IDCC stock is rising is that, as you insinuated, some shares are going to traders who anticipate that IDCC will indeed soon release good news, whether it is in conjunction with the ASM or not. While it is possible that there will some bad news before good news, I believe recent events have tipped the odds in favor of the good news. Like you, I believe there are traders betting on it and when it does come, they will be prepared to take a profit on the spike.
IMO, IDCC would not be concerned with whether an announcement was helpful to traders or not. The decision makers would be restricted from trading on the news and so it would be of no help to them. Satisfying traders would not effect the long term price of the stock either. If they did make an announcement to coincide with the ASM, it would seem to me that it would only be done because of the stage that the ASM would provide. Personally, I don't expect to see any kind of announcement though. We are potentially on the cusp of things that will fundamentally effect the future of IDCC and we will see the announcement soon after whatever newsworthy event occurs.
P&F chart shows a double top breakout.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.pnf?c=IDCC,P&listNum=1
Ghors, one thing I noticed back when Judge Batts made her ruling was that she did not give a timetable for the ALJ to rule on whether or not he would grant IDCC's motion for a stay in the NOK portion of the investigation. Consequently, it seems to me that the issue is somewhat in limbo until the ALJ actually makes a ruling. It may also create something of a conundrum for Batts since my understanding of other posters comments here makes me believe that Batts cannot require the ALJ to rule within any particular timeframe. To do so would violate the ITC's jurisdiction in the case. The best I can figure that NOK could do would be to go back to Judge Batts for another hearing to add a timeframe for IDCC to act on her order and absent a ruling by the ALJ, file for a dismissal. How long would this take if it were even possible?
Please make note that I have no more legal knowledge than what I have picked up on television(LOL) and on this message board and so you might say I have some questions for you hidden in my opinions. What do you think?
" Does this mean we have to file a Motion To Dismiss the ITC investigation per Batts Order while the expedited appeal of Batts injunction is pending."
Ghors/olddog, perhaps now that this case has been brought to light on this board, NOK will file a motion in the Buffalo case to have the injunction stayed to prevent them from being prejudiced against in their case against IDCC, LOL!
IMO, NOK did not change their mind about being tied to Samsung. Instead, it was their plan all along to get the two tied together so they could stop both of them from proceeding. They knew that if IDCC wins against Samsung, they are pretty well done since the two case are nearly identical. This is all a tactic to prevent IDCC from proceeding with the ITC whatsoever. We will see many more innovative tactics used by NOK to continue on this line of attack.
It may be necessary for IDCC (if this is legal) to file for an injunction against NOK to prevent them from interfering with IDCCs attempts to get legal remedy against other companies
IMO, NOK wants the two cases separated and afterwards will somehow or another file to have another Judge take up their case if they don"t succeed in getting to arbitrate. They don"t want to have Judge Luckern preside. It may be they already have another Judge hired to take his place if they can succeed in separating. IMO
That was funny, intended or not.
revlis, herein you see NOK laying the groundwork to file for a stay in IDCCs action against Samsung on the basis that future action will be prejudicial against NOK. Never mind that if NOK can get to and finish the arbitration before the ITC completes Samsung, a favorable outcome for NOK could prejudice against IDCC concerning Samsung. If you were to accept NOKs contention, anything action IDCC had against anyone, as long as IDCC also had an action against NOK, it would be prejudicial against NOK. It seems this would stand the entire legal world on its head if it were to be upheld, In my nonlegal Opinion.
????
IDCC attorneys should present this article as evidence of their FRANDLY rates compared to NOK
Desert D, I'm sure some will disagree but I have always thought, based on my readings of Qualcomm's legal pleadings, that they traditionally have had far superior legal representation than IDCC. IMO, it's the difference in the long term success of the two companies.
warbil, It's been mentioned before but it's evident to me that NOK definitely would like to somehow get out from under this Judge. They seem to be able to have their way in other venues but I believe they see that Judge Luckern ain't gonna play. He tough, sees through the delays and other bull and is going to take this thing all the way through. He also may be beginning to see NOK in a new light. They won against Q in the action presided over by Judge Luckern but in this later case, I believe he is beginning to understand NOK better and it's possible he doesn't like what he sees. Loop may be right in that the good Judge wants to make sure he does not loose control of this thing because he wants to make sure true justice is served
Loop, great points. I've for years thought about how IDCC has never become the company it could be because of how the infringers have been able to avoid paying beginning with Motorola. An easy way of looking at it is by comparing IDCC with Qualcomm. Qualcomm won their suit against ERICY, proceeded to license the rest of the industry and the rest of history. We know what happened to IDCC in comparison.
An analogy would be that if you had two young sons with great athletic ability and one you gave all the support he needed in terms of nutrition while the second, you gave crumbs. In time, the better fed son would advance and compete better in sports and be given better opportunities in training, playing time in his sports and eventually contacts that could carry him to the higher level. The second son would simply have to make do with what he had but finding himself falling further and further behind his better fed brother. In time, once he did begin to receive more in terms of nutrition he could begin to grow but he will NEVER be what he could have been.
If IDCC is not already suffering irreparable harm, what possibly could NOK be contending is the harm done to them?
We are just below the price from March 20. On March 24, IDCC issued the 8K that had the news that IDCC and NOK were in negotiations and had made substantial progress and the price popped. They also made public the news that Judge Batts had granted a stay to NOK allowing them to take the issue to arbitration. The news about substantial progress carried the stock higher overcoming the price depressing effect that Judge Batts ruling should have had.
Based on NOK's legal actions, I don't believe many feel IDCC are close to settling as long as NOK has some hope of winning. IMO, we are now where e would have been IF IDCC had not included the statement about progress in that 8K. I don't know if IDCC will issue another 8K about the denial of the motion to stay Judge Batts order but I'm afraid it will knock the price down some more if they do. If so, I guess I'll be ready to pick up a few more shares. The appeal should not take that long and we do still have Samsung working.
IMO, the sellers are a combination two groups. One group consist of traders that have been "in" on the stock betting on or in anticipation of an IDCC win. The others are real long time holders that are loosing hope when NOK seems to continue to prevail on the wrong side of right. Both groups I believe are hoping to avoid the damage that could come when the second 8K comes out. Shorts, of course, fill out the mix. Hopefully, though some sort of good fortune, that 8K will have something positive in regards to a settlement.
Loop, I've got a question about the appeals court sending the case back to Judge Batts. There was comments to the effect that Judge Batts seemed to admit that she did not understand the case and granted the stay, recognizing that it would be appealed, ostensibly where it would get a fair hearing. Would not the current appeals court realize that sending the case back to Judge Batts would be sending it back to someone who was not equipped to deal with the case?
With manufacturing having exited the US to a very large degree, this, along with the patent legislation pending in Congress is one more attempt to marginalize the US in the world economy. IMO
whizzer, I of course, defer to your and the others' better legal judgment on that but then again, I would not consider the forwarding on of daily best posts as "advice". Instead, I would see it as one additional resource; a pool of ideas that they could consider or reject however they wanted.
whizzer, I second the thought of the others that it would be nice if IDCC's council had opportunities to consider some of the points and arguments you and others that offer legal thought here. I've always figured that someone was monitoring the site for them but perhaps not. I have no doubt that IDCC has top notch representation but it's true that you and the others have a perspective that could yield some nuggets that could be helpful. Has anyone considered taking the best posts of each day and forwarding them on to IDCC?
I don't mean to be negative because, under circumstances that don't have other external factors, I would agree. However, the depth of influence a company like NOK could exert might be greater than we realize.
Consider that Samsung reportedly had $216,000,000 available in it's slush fund for bribes and other influence, and it's widely recognized that European companies make it a practice to utilize "favors" and kickbacks as a normal way of doing business. Would NOK, who has heavily contributed to campaigns on both sides of the political aisle, also try to spread their influence to the media?
http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/26/samsungs-slush-fund-valued-at-216-million-says-former-legal-e/
We've already seen where NOK's legal representation against IDCC is also one of the lobbying giants in American politics. We've also seen many court decisions that our board legal representatives have found flabbergasting. IMO, a substantial representation of judges are in their position, not because of their their legal acumen, but rather that they were politically appointed as a return favor for past support either for a President or the party the President represents. Again IMO, those loyalties continue on after the judge takes their seat and since that position is for life, little can be done when those judges rule to benefit their party's political balance rather than utilizing the scales of justice.
Would this be a fantastic story for the media to dig into? Oh yeah! Would it happen? Who knows?????
I see your point. Thanks for the response
j70k, I hope your right but I have a question as to whether NOK is under that much pressure. Maybe someone can relieve me of this concern. If NOK wants to continue with all avenues of delay, with the possibility that they might win (they've already won some against strong odds) and if the ITC calls for an injunction against NOK products, what prevents NOK from signing an agreement the next day?
spencer, thanks for responding.
mschere, I asked this in an earlier post but no one responded. Did Judge Bats set a date or deadline for IDCC to file for termination if the ALJ did not stay the proceeding against NOK? How long could they wait before they did that? TIA
Loop, when Judge Batss issued her order to IDCC, to file for a withdrawal from the ITC action if the ALJ chose not to stay the NOK portion, did she set a deadline for that? After what time period would pass before she decided to hold IDCC in contempt? Would NOK be required to re approach Judge Batss for enforcement?
STINVESTOR, You left a little bit out of your heading line.
"Tom Daschle....advising lobbying giant Alston & Bird,"
I don't hear it mentioned by the representatives of the legal profession on this board but my opinion of Washington politics is so low, IMO, you would need an excavator to dig for the group that had the highest standards. I hate to admit it but my fear is that well place campaign money is what explains most of NOK's success in this stinking affair
MJPLIFE11, I gave an opinion. I might be and hope I'm wrong. Both the overall market and IDCC moved in a closely related time frame. They are, however, rarely tied at the hip.
I hope today or very soon that we find that some very good news is pushing up IDCC's price. IF it's the kind of news I really hope to hear about, I will expect to soon be wealthy enough to consider myself rich. I wouldn't have the kind of exposure in terms of shares of IDCC stock if I wasn't betting on it, but today; I personally think it's market related.
Yahoo and AOL in deal talks. Walmart ups earnings forecast. Dupont raise 1st quarter estimates. Market moves
No, I'm just making a observation. I might be wrong but when IDCC and the rest of the market pops at the same time, I tend to think it's related. IDCC always move in an exaggerated fashion to the rest of the market.
Both the NAZ and DOW took a jump at the same time IDCC. IMO, the move in price is probably market influenced by some sort of new overall news.
Good points ellismd.
badgerkid, do you live somewhere near the Gulf Coast?
whizzer, I've read the thread on your post here and I have a question. Didn't IDCC want NOK and Samsung separated? Based on that, wouldn't it be good to have the stay delayed until just after Judge Battsinthehead's order took effect, causing the ALJ to separate the cases? Couldn't IDCC and the ITC pick back up the case against NOK once the stay was issued (and later Judge Battsinthehead overruled) and continue like it was with only a small setback in time? TIA for your response.
One thing I hope doesn't play in all this that NOK doesn't somehow know how to influence their way into a hearing before another politically appointed judge that doesn't know bee chit from wild honey.
LOL! I like your phraseology!
Loop, isn't it interesting how your thoughts crystallize, when you are laying awake, without anything else on your mind except that which is keeping you from sleeping?
As Bill and Ted would say; a "very excellent" post, one I hope get read by IDCC's attorneys and the ALJ. In fact, if IDCC's attorneys do not have an assistant combing through the various posts by you, Whizzer, Ghors, Olddog and the rest of the bleacher side, legal team here for salient points, it would be a shame. IMO, you guys should have an official position and should be granted some RSU's, stock options or something by IDCC. I'd support it.
revlis, do you know if there is any penalty for violating this rule? To often we see rules with not "teeth" in their prohibition. It would be good if this passes.
revlis, I have been giving this situation some thought after reading the article on Jim Cramer. The article is full of such quotes as "Jim’s strategy was to put in his order to buy a stock with Mark and then dial Maria. As soon as she announced the news on television, the stock would often jump. Jim then had Mark peel off whatever we had bought.” (Trading With the Enemy, page 124-125.)". I have long believed that this is how some of what goes on works. This article is one more of those rare opportunities to see the nasty underbelly of Wall Street.
You wrote "Let us say Mr. Trent is part of this conspiracy. Then I find it a hopeful sign because it is a good indication that the shorts have no more ammunition and have to resort to desperate moves like Mr. Trent article"
I think you may be right. This very well may mark the end. Take the quote from the article and adapt it to IDCC's situation. It may be the article is a plant to provide cover while the short sellers buy back their short shares. Following this theory, tomorrow, there will be a sharp spike in selling, similar to the time the negative article came out of Pakistan. Stop losses are triggered, accompanied by panic selling. The shorts take advantage of the downdraft to buy back.
Personally, I believe this occurs all the time, with the shorts re initiating a new short position every time the price jumps back up, either through truly good news or due to another planted article that is designed to run the price up. The difference could be that this time, the shorts do not initiate a new short position because of the very real possibility of IDCC taking NOK to the mat for the pin.
It's not a matter of one article moving the stock. Instead, IMO it's a cover for another round of the short attack, which will trigger some more margin call selling. There may not be any truth to the suspicion of price manipulation via short attack. However, there appears to be a pattern that would support such a notion.