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.
Having IPR "inside" is true of all companies with essential patents. Having a chip product inside, is specific to chip suppliers.
It would get us back to the ITC, with a new scheduling order, and a new trial under a different construction. Then, the outcome would be sent to the Commission for further decision, followed by additional appeals, etc. Nothing short of settlement will end this saga, and I don't expect a quick settlement irrespective of the CAFC decision. A win would of course be good, but those who expect a quick resolution thereafter, are likely being set up for disappointment.
The CAFC decision, whichever way it goes, will not end the saga. It is merely a footnote.
You missed my point to Bulldozer. It's that simple.
Even if this analyst is correct, your assumption doesn't follow.
It's pretty clear that the fixed fee agreement between Apple and IDCC was negotiated because Apple had decided to use the Infineon chip that contained some IDCC IPR, and Foxconn had no license that would have paid IDCC on each iPhone. That solved the problem of placing a licensed chip into and unlicensed phone product.
Dozer, Apple doesn't pay QCOM directly for any iPhones, but they do get paid royalties at their world standard rate on every iPhone, from Foxconn and Pegatron. As for chip revenues, they only get them on the CDMA version of the of the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2. It seems that the next iPhone and iPad may be a different story on the chip side, but that remains to be proven at tear down.
Why didn't Apple or any ODM appear on the list of 10% revenue contributors? There was a truckload of iPhones and iPads sold.
The fixed fee royalties will be paid by Apple irrespective of the chip. But if all the sourced stories and rumours prove true at tear down, Infineon may have lost the baseband slot, thereby depriving IDCC of stack royalties. Obviously, if they prove untrue, it will be better for IDCC.
How do you suggest IDCC will make any money from the iPhone 5? Certainly they make chipset stack royalties from the iPhone 4, so let's hope to string that out for as long as possible.
LG wasn't in the business of selling phones when the fixed fee license was signed? Care to provide some back-up facts?
3G deja vu. Commercial value does not depend upon patent counting, nor essential claims.The market place, comprised of technologically sophisticated companies dealing bilaterally will determine that which message board mavens cannot. If you were close to right, IDCC would have been taken out long ago. I remember all the bluster about the "engine and transmission" of 3G. It hasn't been easy monetizing that much hyped 3G portfolio, and the rates have been less than impressive considering all the bravado. Better to be from Missouri on this one, lest expectations exceed reality.
With irony, IDCC's attorneys will be happy to quote Nokia's statements about the sanctity of IPR, in pursuing justice against NOKIA in the courts, and before the ITC.
Thanks for proving my rhetorical point - Ramsey established "his board" in 1999, and last actively posted there in 2004 - i.e., 5 years later. He's been "gone" from active moderation and participation for longer than that. No big deal, for sure, but my "sense memory" was reasonably accurate.
Nokia's pattern is to settle,begrudgingly, but not until the last minute. One can hope that their strategy will be different this time, now that their management has been replaced, and their world dominance is declining. But I wouldn't assume they'll act differently, until proven otherwise.
Trevor, there is zero chance that the Verizon iPad2 won't have a Qualcomm baseband at tear down. There is also a good chance (IMO 50/50) that the AT&T version will likewise have a Qualcomm baseband. There is a better than 50/50 chance that all iPhone5 versions will use a Qualcomm baseband, with the CDMA version being a lock.
Don't get attached to a $.25 dividend this year. Won't happen. Lucky to get $.21. They may need the on shore money for Atheros, despite their hope that off shore funds can be utilized.
I won't dignify that with a substantive response. When I intend to state your opinion, I will spell it out for you.
What in the world does an esoteric claims' construction ruling in the Nokia case, have to do with LG? LG already had signed a 3G license, thereby conceding the necessity to do so. With issues like per unit v fixed fee, and extensions to 4G, the LG negotiations are complex enough on their own merit. To connect them in any way to the appeal of an adverse decision on a few patents in the Nokia litigation, is a huge stretch.
P/E expansion will come with new licensees, because it's all about growth.
Google TDD-LTE.
Such nostalgia, sigh. Ramsey has been gone for longer than he was present, Nokia has squandered, through hubris and miscalculation, that which it once dominated - nothing seems the same. Then you show up, as an homage to consistency, and reaffirm the reality, that some things don't change.
JohnSamuel, while I reject your premise, I am simply baffled by talk of licensing service providers. Except when DoCoMo used their own proprietary, non-standard version of WCDMA (FOMA), I can't see any reason why such entities would need licenses for their networks. The infrastructure suppliers would pay the appropriate royalties, as would the device manufacturers. How would IDCC even determine a carrier royalty, if one were appropriate? A percentage of the revenue from their networks? Makes no sense to me. Even Qualcomm, whose licensees are infrastructure, chipset, device, and test equipment companies, do not license service providers.
The question I asked was sincere. Without a rational explanation, I must completely disregard the hearsay information the declarant attributed to an anonymous IDCC employee at the booth in Barcelona.
What "carriers" are currently licensed, what would they need to license, and why?
The ad said there already is an InterDigital development center in San Diego.
What patents does Microsoft need from IDCC, to design operating system software? They don't make or sell any devices, or other hardware.
O.K., assclown. Let's get a few things straight, and then I'm done with you forever. Since you are so keen on what "the market" is saying, now that IDCC stock has momentum money propelling it to a post-December 1999 high, here are the facts. IDCC has a float of 44.32 million shares, compared to QCOM's 1.64 billion. That means that every dollar of IDCC is worth $44.32 mil, while every dollar of QCOM is worth $1.64 bil. On the day you posted this juvenile taunt, both stock prices were essentially the same, but the market assessment of Qualcomm's value was $92.39 billion, as compared with InterDigital's $2.49 billion. Since that day, QCOM has gone up $1.39/sh, while IDCC has declined $.85. Current market caps are $94.68 bil for QCOM, compared with $2.46 bil for IDCC. So since your recent puerile post, Qualcomm has increased by approx. 1 IDCC market cap.Here's a little math problem for you - how many points would IDCC need to add, in order to reach QCOM's current market cap? That's what would be needed for "the market" to value both companies the same.
As for 4G, for over a decade you claimed that IDCC would eclipse QCOM in 3G. You were dead wrong. QCOM signed all 3G vendors, on the infrastructure, chipset, and device levels, and IDCC wasn't able to get more than 50% of devices, and at a far lower rate. In 4G, Qualcomm has signed 9 stand alone 4G vendors, who make no 3G products, and has signed 4G extensions with all Tier 1 vendors, and many smaller companies, at a rate in excess of 3%.InterDigital has had the same sort of difficulty in getting 4G licenses, as it had in 3G, and the rate is obviously far less. It is both the ease of getting licenses, and the terms, that determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of their respective portfolios.
Don't get me wrong - IDCC is a great small float stock to own. But you are delusional trying to compare the two companies.
On a personal level, since for well over a decade you have shown us who you are, you are a bad guy. Why have you chosen over the years to show up on QCOM boards with taunts and trash talk? You have never had an intelligent post on the IDCC board, and have never owned QCOM stock. It's xenophobic tribalism with you. Bad karma. I, on the other hand, own both companies' stock, and am happy to have both making money. Bye bye, dolt.
Better get Nokia's money fast. They are showing signs of agonal breathing, and EMS is enroute.
As in 3G, the commercial value of a portfolio is generally determined through arms' length bilateral negotiations, between sophisticated corporations, each having access to the advice of engineers, consultants, and lawyers. The stronger the IPR, the easier the licensing, and the greater the rate and revenues. In their long course of litigation and negotiation for 3G and 4G licensing, Nokia argued that "patent counting" should be employed, and that Nokia had more of them than Qualcomm. They had studies that backed them up on a quantitative analysis of IPR. When they did sign a peace treaty and 15 year license a couple years ago, however, Nokia paid Qualcomm an up front $2.5 bil dollars, transferred many patents outright, and agreed to pay ongoing royalties for the duration of the agreement, for all 3G and 4G standards.
Show me the licenses, and the revenues. Until then, the long term effect of building unrealistic expectations is negative, though I appreciate the short term pumping of the stock price.
Pumpkin, haven't you grown up by now? Be happy, as I am, that IDCC's stock is on a tear. It's market cap is closing in on $2.5 bil. Just think, Qualcomm is paying $3.2 bil cash for Atheros. That's something a company with a market cap in excess of $90 bil, with almost $20 bil of cash, can do. IDCC is a great little company, and small float stock. I'm glad I own some. Other than that, it is unfair to compare the two companies. Their businesses are too dissimilar, and IDCC is in, shall we say, a different world.
P.S. Sorry Infineon lost the Apple baseband business. IDCC will make up the revenue elsewhere.
If memory serves me right, QCOM started in 2003 with a $.025 dividend (split adjusted for '04 2 for 1), and after annual raises, is up to $.19. It is not the initial amount of IDCC's dividend that matters, but the fact that they have begun paying a regular one. That shows confidence in a dependable revenue stream, and expectations of growth ahead.
David, I don't know whether to be flattered, or offended, but truth be told I'm neither. <gg> It's long past time for you to let go of the IDCC v QCOM holy wars. Back in the old AOL board days, flame throwers from the IDCC side would often lob blasts across the digital divide, and proclaim to QCOM investors that IDCC "owned" the keys to 3G, and Qualcomm's "narrow band" CDMA would make them obsolete as the world transitioned to WCDMA. The mythology claimed Qualcomm lacked TD patents, and IDCC's BCDMA work would send QCOM into a 3G death spiral. Of course, those of us early to the QCOM story were offended by such (ignorant) assertions, and by the aggressive ardor of the flame throwers.
Those days passed for me long ago, and I eventually took my IDCC position in the upper teens - long after the IDCC-only crowd, but well in time to capitalize on the future I expected to see. As with seemingly everything involving wireless, the premise has been right, but the timing of growth delayed.Give it up. Both companies have a great future, and there is money to be made with both. I do agree that IDCC's small float and market cap provide some great "make up" valuation appreciation opportunities, that are substantially more difficult to replicate in a company with an $80 bil market cap. Personally, I'm thrilled to have invested in both.
Wireless data is the growth catalyst for "must have" consumer products, in this now untethered world.We have all known data to be the strength of InterDigital's portfolio, but the realities on the ground have just recently caught up to that focus. For years, IDCC has been undervalued by the market, to the point of being easily capped in performance, but the growth curve of wireless data has finally exceeded the ability to suppress the stock into a predictable range.InterDigital has managed to show good growth, despite the vagaries and delays of the civil justice system. With 3G past the inflection point, and 4G out of the lab, licensing should progress more quickly and broadly. In short, InterDigital is in the right space, with the right model, at the right time.The market is finally acknowledging that, and anticipating the growth we have long expected.
Dozer, is there any precedent in the industry for service provider licenses, other than with a DoCoMo, who also manufactures proprietary technology for its network infrastructure and devices? (e.g., despite having licensed virtually everyone, Qualcomm has no service provider licenses - only chip, testing equipment,infrastructure, and device licenses.)
Personally, I don't expect IDCC to license "carriers", but do expect them to license the remaining infrastructure and device holdouts.Engineering work, such as for SKT on handovers, is a different matter.
You are conflating the issue of whether Nokia needs a license from IDCC (no doubt in my mind they do), with the issue of how strong or weak their chances are of winning this appeal.IDCC will get a license with Nokia, but they may lose this appeal.
You keep asserting that Nokia, the appellee, has "slim chances" of winning in the CAFC. That is simply dreaming on your part. It is generically easier to get affirmance, or a finding of "harmless error", than reversal. That is not to say that IDCC shouldn't or won't win this appeal, but portraying Nokia's odds of getting affirmance as slim is pure hyperbole.
Dozer, you're correct that Apple and Qualcomm have no publicly disclosed direct license yet, and that Qualcomm gets its iPhone 3G royalties from the contract manufacturer, Foxconn. It is also true that no CDMA iPhone has been publicly disclosed. If Apple has selected Qualcomm for any chip business, I expect them to disclose a license when Apple products containing Qualcomm chips become commercially available to consumers.
What seems most likely is that Apple will sell CDMA iPhones from January until Summer, when they'll roll out the iPhone5 worldphone everywhere, with global 3G radios, and possibly LTE. The next iPad is likely to feature a Gobi global 3G radio, and possibly LTE (though unlikely). If a single radio chip is to be used to connect to both CDMA and GSM/HSPA networks, only Qualcomm can supply it. If two chips are used, Qualcomm will get the CDMA baseband, and Infineon will likely keep their present slot.JMHO
That's not what's responsible for IDCC's slow start in signing LTE licenses, because Qualcomm has had no similar problems. They have licensed 4 of the 5 top handset manufacturers, plus numerous others, for LTE. I still haven't seen IDCC publish a demanded LTE royalty rate, as many of the majors have. That would be a logical place to start, before negotiations get serious.
Whatever dividend is initially chosen, I hope the BOD starts with an amount that will allow them to raise the quarterly dividend annually. That would engender confidence in management's expectation that free cash flow will be predictably increasing.