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.
Don't try to muddy the waters Mschere. The agreement expires in 3 years from now. From your line of reasoning you could say the agreement covered 1992-2006 for a total of 14 years. If so, that makes the royalties look tiny indeed, especially since it is widely reported that IDCC had turned down a $100 million cash offer many years ago just to bring them current up to that point!
But three years from now is three years from now. You are just trying to confuse people.
Once
GBR, I used the adjective 3 "short" years in the context that this is an unusually short contract length for IPR contracts. Usually the agreement would run at least until the IPR expired.
I didn't mean to imply the years were any longer or shorter than a regular calendar year.
Once
It's not incomplete at all. Actually the fact that the Ericsson agreement expires in only three years is too significant to not be discussed further. Why wouldn't they make the agreement go out to at least 2008. Do you think GSM, GPRS and EDGE will be extinct by then? Who cares if it only makes up 15% of the market. We all saw what Qualcomm did with 15% of the market in 1999.
Maybe we should ask the company if the Ericsson contract precludes renegotiating any GSM, GPRS and EDGE revenues after three years is up? Don't let them brush you off with a "We think that will be an insignificant part of the market in three years." I think even 10% would be significant.
Some people claim I only look at the negative side of IDCC. While it's true that my posts focus on the parts of IDCC that many would rather not see, I still consider all aspects of IDCC in a balanced way even though my posts mostly have to do with the negatives.
The reason for this should be obvious. There are already plenty of people pointing out any and all positives, why would I reiterate what they are already saying? If I think of a positive that no one has mentioned I will certainly mention it but it's pretty hard to do when so many are already dissecting everything looking for any hint of a positive, no matter how far-fetched. I'm trying to add a little balance to the discussion and the way to do that is to bring up the negatives that many would prefer to overlook. IMO, the negatives I bring up are not fringe concepts (like many of the positives mentioned here) but very real observations and possibilities that should be considered before assigning a risk/reward ratio.
Good luck,
Once
Why wouldn't I throw that out, is it an unmentionable?
"and for you to throw out that "the GSM ERICY agreement expires in 3 short years....so you think that will be the end of funds coming in from ERICY? You best rethink that shorty."
Where I come from the length of a contract is one of the most important things. I don't know why the contract would come to an end so quickly. BTW, I never said that would necessarily end all funds from Ericy but the revenues from that contract will end. That's indisputable and I don't know why you would take exception to my mention of it.
Once
Interesting find Arazihk. The author doesn't quite have all his facts straight but draws some interesting conclusions nevertheless. Thanks for posting that?
I was most surprised that after that rather comprehensive summary he didn't even mention the GSM Ericy agreement expires in 3 short years.
Once
Mickey, in defense of sjratty, I think all he was saying is that we still don't know what that rate will be. It could be quite a small percentage and the one or two time payments should not be weighted much (if at all) when the actual royalty percentage (or amounts of recurring royalties) is key to valuing this company. We know there will be some recurring royalty. we just don't how much.
Seriously, didn't IDC have recurring royalties all through the 90's but had trouble peeking above $20 because the amounts were so small. Longevity also matters. For example, the recent 2G settlement with Ericy expires in 2006, 3 short years from now. Has anyone asked the company why they signed an agreement that will expire so soon when there will still be many millions of such devices in use? It has the net effect of inflating the recurring royalties in the short-term. I've learned to be quite sceptical of these agreements.
Once
Yes, that would give you some points but you would get more if you broke it up and submitted it as many shorter insults/personal attacks. It was too long to read all the way through. Additionally, plagiarism is discouraged.
Once
Maybe Matt won't publish the new rules....That way no one can use them against him. <g>
Once
The little ".e" tagged on the end generally means the same thing your alias says <g>.
Once
Churak, that's not what I had in mind at all! In fact, on my insults and personal attacks board most of those posts would have to be deleted because they were not insulting enough! That board is so watered down it should be required to change it's name to "Bunnies and Babies"!
Once
Feelin' like a Bad Dog? Got a hankerin' to bury the bone?
Audio File
Please be patient
[Suppressed Sound Link]
I thought you might have some bottled up messages waiting to come out! Well, they would be most welcome on the insult and personal attack board!
I was also thinking about having a running list of the posters with the best insults, kind of like a top 20 board that people could aspire to. The more creative insults that were posted, and the higher they were rated by the board moderators, the more points one could collect to propel them to the top of the charts.
Once
Matt, It's becoming increasingly apparent that iHub posters need a good way to relieve a little tension after all this tip-toeing through the tulips that goes on around here.
In light of this, I am considering starting a new board just for insults and personal attacks. The rules would clearly state that every post must contain at least one insult or personal attack or else be subject to deletion. A post could also be subject to deletion if it was overly friendly or positive in nature, even if the post also contained a personal attack and/or an insult. Low-brow and/or simpleton insults are discouraged but will not be deleted simply for that reason. However, creative and clever insults and personal attacks are highly encouraged. Vulgarity is neither encouraged nor discouraged.
The board moderators are the only participants allowed to give positive feedback and will provide encouragement and compliments to those with the best insults/personal attacks.
The only other reason a post could be deleted is if it violated someones personal privacy or contained a threat of an illegal nature.
The purpose of all this is to provide a much needed outlet for all the stress that is obviously building up around here. What do you think?
Once
Finally, we agree 100% !
",,,,,we got a whole bunch of folks that may or may not be on the right road..."
I couldn't have put it better myself! <g>
Once
I'm afraid I don't follow you.
Once
Blueskywaves, this makes no sense:
"One of the intangible benefits of the 3/14 ERICY settlement is that it gave IDCC a fresh start at shedding its reputation as a patent house especially now that it has the financials to match. It's no surprise that IDCC is trying to exploit the situation by sweetening its options program to recruit more technical and management talent at a time when most tech companies have option programs that are perenially underwater like so much swampland."
What? How did the 3/14 Ericy settlement help IDCC to shed their image as a patent house? If anything, it strengthened it because it was an agreeement to pay for IDCC's patents!
On your second point, if IDCC is going to fly, they will be able to do it without recruiting any new talent. It is do or die time. You suggest these new options could help them recruit new talent. That would be terribly expensive new talent if IDCC really does fly. IMO, it's in the shareholders best interest to reject that ballot measure even though it will pass anyway, driven by those who want to sell and buy in for less.
Once
Habu says:
"ASM is going to be interesting. How many will stand up and complain? how many will get dragged out by the law for making a spectical of themselves? 5MM short. someone is working hard and paying a lot to have the bashers try to talk it down while they continue to short it down."
The claim that the "bashers" are being paid a lot to 'bash" the price back down is one of the oldest in the book. I'm not much into anti-IDCC conspiracies but if there are paid IDCC bashers, wouldn't it make much more sense that there were also paid advocates of management, lobbying shareholders to approve more slop for the trough? Oink, Oink....
Seriously though, looking at the discussion over the last few days in the context of there being literally millions of dollars worth of IDCC stock options sitting on the block.
Do you think the insiders want to get their hands on it? Yes, of course or they wouldn't have put it there.
Are the comments of some of the participants right here consistent with being paid lobbyists of the insiders? Paid to lobby for shareholder approval of this ballot issue? Of course they are.
Would it be illegal? Of course it would.
Does that mean it's not happening? Of course not.
Do I believe that's what's happening? I don't know but it's a heck of a lot more believable than the oft repeated theory the shorts are paying bashers to bash.
Here's my suggestion with regard to the vote on options. Don't be taken! If management really does perform, there will be plenty of time to reward them at that time. If the options are approved, it will virtually guarantee another trip back to the low teens or single digits so the insiders can achieve a favorable strike price. And that's why the ballot measure will probably pass, followed by a big sell-off by the shareholders/institutions who approved the extra options. By selling off after approving the measure they will be "most aligned" with management in order to buy in low and ride it back up. It's a vicious cycle, repeating endlessly. Think of Stewart Copeland on The Rythmatist, Serengeti Long Walk.
And what's this about how many will the law drag out of the ASM? I had no idea the shareholder meetings were so exciting!
Once
Art, when did you start selling? I thought you were a "loyal long" who wouldn't even consider selling until $250 or more:
"i am voting all my shares for our great mgmt who by the way is making me a ton of money,,,JMHO"
Once
Why is the Who posted under the title "Audio Humor"? Hopefully it's either a mistake or you are just trying to keep us on our toes!
I've been enjoying the rock-n-roll! I keep a window of Wantobe open all the time!
Once
I assume that was said sarcastically?
"and oh what a great reward it will be when we "reward them" w/ 60 dollar strike price options next year...."
Does that mean the Houston $100 party is not likely to happen next year either? If the Houston $100 happened in 2006 then those options would be worth a mint, no? Are you saying we can no longer expect the stock to hit $100 any time soon?
To clarify, this is something I've believed for a long time but have you changed your mind now?
Once
Patience dumpter, I need to eat lunch and then I will send it out. I want to be able to send all the requests at once.
Once, I have requested the name of the "email culprit".
You wrote, "If anyone wants to know who the culprit is they can e-mail me at: 2once@ragingbull.com
Once
That's an interesting way of looking at it:
"One hundred percent(100%) of the commercial success, earning power, and sustained revenue growth necessary to create value appreciation in a publicly traded company is created by;
A) The management, employees, and business partners of the company.
B) Speculative investors who buy shares in the company.
I answered "A" on that one, and will vote "yes" on Management's proposal requesting additional shares for the incentive program."
In that same vein, maybe we should approve another 5 or 10 million options for those business partners who sign license agreements with us? <g>
I'm always amazed at how much some owners of a company are willing to pay people to run it. If IDCC really has the goods then it shouldn't be that hard to collect. On the otherhand, if IDCC's goods are suspect, and only a wizard can extract value, then perhaps management deserves most of any profit they are able to realize?
It seems that's what some are arguing.
Once
Yes, that was a bad call, that I admit. But trading has never been my strongest suit. I'm more interested in fundamental analysis which is what I restrict most of my comments to.
I'm afraid I'm only human and sometimes the Raging Bull people posted mean and hateful comments about me to get under my skin and caused me to say things I didn't really mean. I have taken that into account and refrain from doing that here.
Once
Mschere, regarding the 10K excerpt you provided, it's very important to look at the exact language. I really like to rely upon SEC filings because the company can be held to them and they are a primary source of ammunition for shareholders should we find out that things are not as we have been led to believe. In other words, the company is (or should be) very specific about how they word things of importance. In your example the company said:
"Based on these limitations, the Siemens and the Qualcomm agreements do not provide a license under all the ITC patents or IPR Holdings Patents which we believe to be essential to 3G, including CDMA 2000, or all of the inventions which we believe will be essential and which are contained in pending patent applications."
That word "or" is very important to a lawyer or anyone who understands how such language is interpreted in a court of law. Taking this into account I don't believe the sentence says what you think it does. It's not a very well-written sentence and it is somewhat complex but two things are certain:
1) If the word "or" (in bold) was changed to "and" then the sentence would say what you believe it already says.
2) By changing "or" to "and" the entire meaning of the sentence is changed.
Something to consider before interpreting the specific parts of the 10K that are most important to IDCC's future value in a way that favors IDCC's position in the world of IPR. Just remember, a court of law knows all about the differences between "and" and "or". I have to believe the lawyers at IDCC understand this also.
Once
Nessco, it's important to realize that private analysts don't have access to the specifics any more than you or I do:
"At least we know it's not QCOM, he said IDCC's technology is complimentory to QCOM's."
That's his opinion and it's based on the same info we have access to. It's also IDCC's belief that their IPR is required for CDMA2000, the indemnifier has apparently disagreed and has put their money where their mouth is. Time will tell.
Once
Jim, I asked Matt if I could post the e-mail address of the list member of the person who purposefully sent out a virus but he said that would be a violation of the TOU that he would have to enforce if I did that so I won't be posting it here.
I would just send the warning to everyone on the list but we know it's not the kind of list that encourages participation. <g>
Because you don't seem interested in having me e-mail it to you so you can protect the other list members I will offer to send it to anyone who inquires so individuals can block e-mail from that person. I think the assumption of you (and perhaps many others) is that I was probably sent the virus because I'm not bullish on IDCC and those who are will be safe from attacks of this person. That's the only explanation that explains your failure to take a more proactive role in protecting the list members. The question in my mind is: If the sender of the virus switches to a short-seller and wants to muzzle the free speech of the longs, will he then send it to the rest of the list?
If anyone wants to know who the culprit is they can e-mail me at: 2once@ragingbull.com
Once
Matt, I was mailed a virus to my e-mail address that is part of Jim's IDCC mail list. The sender thought they had stripped their address from the message but it was still embedded in the header. Is it against the TOU to post the e-mail address of the virus spreader so other list member can take appropriate action to protect themselves from future attacks?
I would simply e-mail it to all list members but I have learned it's not that kind of list, LOL! I asked Jim if I should send it to him in private so he can send it out to the list but his suggestion is to just post it publicly. I wanted to check with you to see if there is any problem with that.
Thanks,
Once
Fmilt, I assure you that post was entirely sincere but it perhaps could have been worded more clearly. I was just surprised at the way the term "MFL clause" was being used. I guess if the report is accurate in the context of how it discussed the MFL clause, then I believe it means the clause is broader than I originally thought. In other words, not only can the MFL clause be used to obtain a lower rate at a future date, it can also be used to set the initial rate. If that's the way it's being used it confuses the licensing issues.
In a sense it's counting IDCC's chickens before they hatch. IDCC is saying Nokia agreed to pay us, but not any more than others are paying, and not until the others do. To me, that's not much better than no license at all. I am fairly certain the major manufacturers get together and have discussion amongst themselves and behind closed doors to develop a strategy to deal with pesky IDCC. I say "pesky" not in a derogatory sense but looking at it through the manufacturers eyes. They don't want to pay any more than necessary and probably feel that IDCC was just being opportunistic by filing all those patents around others inventions hoping to be able to set a couple of legal hooks that will allow them to collect a few royalties in the future. These other companies will have to come to some sort of agreement with IDCC or go to court and argue that IDCC's patents happened after the fact and are not applicable to existing products. They can only hope that their version of justice prevails.
Once
Spree, Matt can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it is iHubs policy to protect your privacy as much as possible. Privacy is important to me as I have actually had a couple of not-so veiled death threats and I believe the people making them were possibly deranged enough to try it. To clarify, those threats happened at RB, not iHub. They have been reported to the authorities so any further suspicious activities will have some leads.
I believe iHub will not release information without an official request for discovery issued by a court of law and even then you may have a right to contest the release of such information. I think the main exception to this is under the Patriot Act. Americans have lost a lot of privacy in the name of fighting terrorism and the Patriot Act strips away most of the rights previously enjoyed by Americans if you are accused of being tied to terrorist activities. This wouldn't concern me except for the potential for these new laws to be abused and used against people who have nothing to do with terrorism.
But I'm getting way off the subject. you can read iHubs official policy here:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/complex_terms.asp#privacy
I think your concerns are misplaced.
Once
"PS to Matt - Why isn't "melee" in your dictionary?"
He probably didn't want anyone to get any ideas so he removed it. <g>
Once
Art, I have a feeling you think I stole your e-mail addresses. I can assure you, I didn't steal anything and I have not divulged them to anyone, not even other list members. The one who purposefully sent a virus is a special case. I think everyone on the list needs to know who that is.
Once
It sounds like you are fine with me posting the e-mail address of the person who sent the virus, if Matt doesn't object I will post the e-mail publicly tomorrow (I think Matt went night-night already).
Once
Jim, I received a virus at the same e-mail address I provided to the list. The sender thought he had blocked his identity but it was embedded in the header so I know who it was (a list member). It could be the same person who is sending stuff to you and Art. If you like I will send you the e-mail address of the culprit.
Once
No, you obviously haven't been listening:
"My bet is that is all anybody wanted to hear you say."
They claim I stole the list and want me to apologize to the group. In fact, they are the ones who should apologize to me for falsely accusing me of all these things.
I wouldn't even want to mail someone who didn't want to get my mail. Do you even understand that the purpose of my first e-mail was to offer to remove those who didn't want mail from me? I can't believe how so many can take such a simple event and turn it into a capital crime against humanity. I've never even heard of an e-mail list where list members couldn't mail one another!
Once
What? Where did you get that idea?
"If you really feel IDCC is going to collapse then be content saying you told them and wait."
I never said I thought IDCC is going to collapse, I said I don't think it's going to the moon like most of the bulls claim.
"20-40 posts? Was there a huge price move? What is the point of beating a dead horse."
What? Price move? I don't know, I generally don't even follow the hour to hour price (I assume you mean of IDCC?). I'm not sure why you think the price is important or even relevant. Please explain.
As far as beating a dead horse, I'm not. I just thought it would be nice if someone apologized for the wholesale deletion of a whole slew of perfectly honorable posts. Every time I posted a new post it would be deleted within a minute or three without any reason. Is Matt (or whoever is responsible) too "big" to offer a simple apology?
Apparently so.
Once
Excel, I was only informed after the fact that the e-mail list was not to be responded to, ie. that it was a one-way list. The e-mail addresses were mailed to everyone on the list, we all got a copy. Every e-mail list I have ever participated in was a group list where e-mails went from each member to all members, I have never even heard of an e-mail list where members submit potential list materials to one person who then single-handedly decides whether to forward it to the group or not. I never even dreamed that was the kind of list I was subscribing to and it was never made clear beforehand, before I sent the first e-mail! When I was told it was not intended to be that kind of list I HONORED that! What is the big friggin' deal?
The continued suggestion that I did something wrong is ridiculous. It was a simple mistake and no one was harmed, not even in the slightest. It is being used as a form of attack on me since that's the worst thing anyone can come up with.
Shameful!
Once
I've always believed the MFL (Most Favorable Licensee) clause was a clause that could only be used to reduce royalty obligations of a manufacturer.
For example, say Nokia discovered that NEC was only paying 50% as much as Nokia. Nokia could then use that discovery to make the legitimate case that they too should get the same deal.
However, in this report it appears they are using "MFL" to speak to specific manufactures as these manufacturers will determine Nokia's rate. My impression is the the most favorable licensee will determine the rate, past or future, not one specific company. After all, why use the term "most favorable" if that's not what it means?
Once
I don't think iHub considers them part of iHub. On Monday one of the COB's went loco and started deleting twenty or forty of my posts. These were perfectly legitimate, polite, well-written and on topic posts. They were being deleted as I posted them, it was quite frustrating. Eventually Matt restored them but it took a few hours. All I wanted out of the deal was a simple apology, from either Matt or the COB but I haven't seen one of those yet and I don't think one is coming.
Shameful.
Once
I agree, that is what I was saying. I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear.
Once