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.
This is a good example of the problems with giving too much personal leeway with deletions, the more heavy-handed the moderation, the more wisdom, fairness and impartiality is needed to moderate. The obvious and best solution is just to let people write what they want as long as it's not vulgar or a personal attack. Yes, there is still some subjectiveness but not nearly as much as if it's o.k. for people to just decide they don't really like what someone is saying so it can be deleted.
Once
Churak, in my opinion you have a solid case. The TOU haven't been changed. I don't see how any rational person could argue with that.
Hopefully this won't lead to a change in the TOU to a version that is more lenient towards censorship. I don't think that would reflect well on iHub.
Once
I was just weighing in on the issue, if you don't like it just ignore it, don't try to muzzle me.
Once
I don't think it's ridiculous at all:
"I honestly can't believe you are bringing this up. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you take issue over. Anybody put you up to this?"
Since when is censorship ridiculous? Especially when someone has paid good money to post. I don't know why some people feel the need to control what others say, why not just ignore it?
I think your argument is ridiculous, Churak is actually making good sense.
Once
Mschere, that statement doesn't make a lot of sense:
"Why is IDCC limited to only acquiring Companies for their patent portfolio? IMO: They will be seeking device manufacturers and software Companies ..that can utilize IDCC assets and Industry relationships."
As far as I know the only significant assets IDCC has is it's patent portfolio and the value of that is proportionate to the amount it can license it for. You are suggesting that IDCC buy companies that could utilize these patents. That would make these acquisitions competitors to IDCC's licensees (present and future). Do you remember the primary reason Qualcomm divested itself of it's handset division? Because some of it's licensees were wary of signing a license agreement with a manufacturer who was competing with them. The whole unfair advantage thing. Now you are suggesting that IDCC will be putting themselves in that same awkward situation?
As far as using IDCC's "industry relationships", it's difficult to imagine how that would be beneficial considering that IDCC is widely considered to be the Rodney Dangerfield of the telecom world. Even Nokia, the company who apparently has the best relationship of all with IDCC, will barely give them the time of day. Just how is this type of relationship going to help anyone?
Once
You don't even know what's going on. I'm trying to help ol' Art bust outta this hellhole! This is no place for an ol' guy like Art! He could die in here!
Once
No, he gets sober in the usual amount of time but he remains cranky for a couple more days. <g>
Art and I go waaaaay back!
Once
There was no advice there. I don't even see how you could read any advice into that. I was just sharing my experience since I've heard Art say he has me on ignore so many times I can't even remember. Matt can take it how he sees fit. It was just one more data point.
I think you might be the one who needs to chill out.
Once
"Eat my monitor" is just a figure of speech. I'm surprised you took me literally. I guess many took the "engine and transmission" literally. Anyway, you don't have to worry, Qualcomm is not going to buy IDCC out, that's just a rumor that's been circulating amongst IDCC longs since Nov. of '99 at least.
Ain't gonna happen.
Once
Matt. I can tell you this from past experience with Art:
He will swear many times and tell all he has me on ignore and then one of my comments will strike a chord with him and he will respond with a real string of profanities. I think it's after he's been drinking. He's a real nice guy as long as he's been sober a few days.
Just because he says I'm on ignore doesn't make it so.
Once
Jim, I already sent him the report.
Once
I would be willing to eat my monitor if Qualcomm bought out IDCC at any price above the current share price of $22.40. Anything less than that is just a nuisance buyout.
How's that for an answer?
Once
Nieves, I'll forward the copy I just received.
Once
The mention of a buyout wouldn't surprise me, the whole purpose of these "research reports" is to drum up interest in the stock. They are best used as a contrarian indicator.
I'll eat my monitor if Qualcomm buys IDCC (unless it's just a nuisance buyout).
Once
Nieves, have you checked your e-mail yet? You might have been deleted from the list also, that's the same address you already sent to Jim.
Once
Jim, I must have been deleted from the list as the report didn't show up. Please send it to: 2once@ragingbull.com
TIA,
Once
The silence is killing me!
"Can you show me ANY other mid-cap public company that has an ISO pool of 34% of the company approved by shareholders after going public? I expect not."
Certainly someone can come up with an example of more insider options?
Once
It worked but the chart looks like it wants to go higher. I just sold it because it was my only stock, got tired of having it in my portfolio.
Once
Stuck to my plan and sold it @ $6.46 for a 10% profit.
Once
Ziploc, just curious:
"It may have been released now so that we could all express our upset and then be embarrassed when really good news was released in the next few days just before the CC."
What makes you think management wants to embarrass shareholders? Do you really think they would go to the extreme of basing the decision of when to release this news based on when it would most embarrass shareholders?
Baffled,
Once
John, you may feel more comfortable to know that there are limits on the various sorts of compensation of IDCC employees:
Under this annual per-person limitation, no participant may in any year be granted share-denominated Awards under the 2000 Plan relating to more than his or her “Annual Limit” for each type of Award. The Annual Limit equals 300,000 shares plus the amount of the participant’s unused Annual Limit relating to the same type of Award as of the close of the previous year, subject to adjustment for splits and other extraordinary corporate events. For purposes of this limitation, options, SARs, restricted stock, deferred stock, and other stock-based awards are separate types of Awards subject to a separate limitation. In the case of cash-denominated Awards, the 2000 Plan limits performance Awards that may be earned by a participant in any year to the participant’s defined Annual Limit, which for this purpose equals $1.5 million plus the amount of the participant’s unused cash Annual Limit as of the close of the previous year.
So you can see there are definite "caps" on compensation abuse, LOL!
Once
I don't think that will be necessary:
"Once, rip away at management on this incentive plan with my blessing."
You see, you guys are already doing a good job of exposing their greed. I only step in when reality is being misrepresented. I'm not going to waste my time saying the same thing ten other well-spoken participants have already said, I like to bring fresh perspectives to the table. If I see a relevant angle that has not been exposed, you can bet I will step up to the plate with it.
Once
And those are love letters you bombard my mail-box with? LOL!
Once
LOL! That would be off-topic here. Actually, I'm not too hot on stocks in general (yet) so just load up on anything and everything! <g>
Once
Jerry, thanks for posting that but you cut off the last (and best) part of that post:
"My initial involvement here began when IDCC was trading at unjustifiably high levels and yet the word from the hypesters was that it was going much higher, to $100, $250, $1000 and beyond. That was just unrealistic and I didn't hold my thoughts on that back.
After I presented many specific facts why that was not going to happen, many who were invested in IDCC began to feel that I was bringing facts and information to the table that was hindering their ability to unload their shares at a profit. People here were quite rude towards my sincere participation and they wanted me to stop posting the information where all could see it for what it was. They wanted me to leave. I made a deal, I would leave if and when IDCC reached $82/share (it's 52 week high at the time) and stayed above that price through two consecutive quarterly earnings releases. Many of the brainwashed thought I would soon be gone. But it was not to be.
In the meantime I have debated many specific points regarding IDCC with the local hypesters and my batting average is almost a perfect 1.000. Of all those issues and over 3000 posts I have only been wrong three or four times. A pretty accurate record. The humorous thing is that after these "vigorous" debates, the clubhouse folk eventually end up adopting the views they had been arguing were so incorrect. It just takes a little time and a pile of evidence to convince them. Actually, they generally have had to pressure the company on the specific points I have raised and the company generally and reluctantly admits it is as I have been arguing. Or enough time passes to prove my predictions correct regarding adoption of WCDMA, technical delays, inferior efficiency, high cost, short battery life, lack of handsets, dropped calles, etc.
Remember when all those new IDCC licensees were just around the corner and I argued that was not the case, this would take a long time to resolve itself and even then it was not likely to be anywhere near as lucrative as many were expecting?
Remember when they were arguing that CDMA2000 was all just hype, a narrowband disaster, an Irwin Jacobs pipe dream? Now look at the success it has had and it's performance has proven to be robust and reliable in many real world environments and it's deployment was on schedule, unlike that of WCDMA which is off to a very rocky start.
I could go on and on but you will just have to go back to march, april, may, june, july of 2000 and see for yourself, it's all recorded right here on RB.
Once"
And I wasn't exactly yelling "fire" or a sell either. I was just telling it how it was.
Once
No Moose, I never recommended selling IDCC at $6 but I did recommend buying it in that range as well as around $8.
Once
Mschere, I agree, the first quarter IDCC earnings are probably going to look really good, not nearly as good as you imply but really good nonetheless:
"Qualcomm earned $103 Million for its current quarter..The market values this earning power at some $24 Billion..IDCC will earn IMO: a similar amount for its first Quarter and the market currently values this earning power at $1.2 Billion."
The problem is that IDCC's revenues are extremely 'lumpy' quarter to quarter and it doesn't take a financial analyst to see that revenues for the year will be front-loaded into the first quarter and, if I'm not mistaken, there will be considerable revenue recognized from past quarters as well.
What this does to the stock price is anyone's guess but it won't be viewed in the same quality vein as Qualcomm's earnings which are much more predictable, less lumpy and of a more secure nature due to the high proportion of recurring revenue to license fee royalties.
IDCC needs to develop a steady stream of recurring royalties that are not going to dry up when the world transitions to 3G. Right now IDCC's license agreements don't even cover 2G handsets if that 2G handset also contains 3G functionality. That's just plain weak in my book.
Unless and until IDCC signs up the major manufacturers for 3G and 2G/3G their existing 2G royalties will not be valued very highly by the street since they will dry up as dual-mode becomes the norm. And right now those agreements are looking mighty slippery.
Once
Mschere, I have never called IDCC a "bad" investment. Misunderstood, yes. Risky, yes. Over-hyped, yes. But never a bad investment.
The record will reflect this.
BTW, your claiming someone is a paid basher or a short does not make it so.
Once
Snowblow, good questions. Investing is just as much about avoiding losses as it is making a profit. It's about balancing the risk/reward. We have all been analyzing the good/bad points regarding IDCC whether we know it or not. If after all this analysis we conclude it is over-valued does that mean all our work was in vain? Of course not.
And those times that IDCC is near the bottom of it's trading range I have even nibbled and I made no secret about it. My message has never been "don't buy IDCC". My message has always been that IDCC is not the company it is cracked up to be. That it carries more risk than most of the bulls would have you believe and is far less likely to ever become the triple digit stock that so many assume is always just around the corner. The reason for this (IMO) is that the value of their IPR has been misrepresented by the bulls. It's a compelling view but not one that necessarily reflects reality.
Every investor must make investment decisions and balance their portfolios to suit their personal situation. How is it possible to do this effectively if one of their core holdings is not the stock that it is portrayed to be?
Once
Learning, your scenario is most puzzling:
"Think about the possibility that the top brass at InterDigital have been fighting for their dignity, honor, and some cash to celebrate with, for almost as long as some of us have been frustrated shareholders.
OK, got that picture? Well, maybe everything they have been fighting and working for just fell into place."
If I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that management just couldn't wait for the shares to reflect the true value they had just created by their shrewd license negotiations. They wanted to PARTY and they wanted to PARTY now! And this celebrating was going to cost millions of dollars? And rather than take out a loan to party with, they decided to just sell the shares before they appreciated.
First of all your scenario makes no sense. Secondly, even if that's what we are witnessing with these large discretionary insider sales, I don't think it would be wise to invest in a company that was run by people with so little discipline.
I don't believe I have misinterpreted what you wrote. Either way you cut it, your scenario just doesn't paint a positive picture. I'm not trying to be negative, just rational.
Once
Learning, I can't understand how you come to these conclusions:
"OK, suppose that is what we are waiting on. What's to worry about? Not much longer term IMO, but plenty if your bet is on the near term "Call" options or you are pushing hard on the margin leverage at this point. "
You were discussing 3G royalty rates. IMO, there is plenty to worry about. The majors have not signed up yet. What part of that doesn't worry you? Qualcomm signed the major manufacturers up for 3G back in 1999-2000 with a few stragglers in 2001. What is so different about IDCC that manufacturers are waiting, waiting, waiting?
Now we have a third party willing to indemnify others against IDCC's IPR claims and you still claim there is nothing to worry about in the long-term? Please explain.
Once
Sonetirot, I didn't yell "fire" at $8 or $9, who are you trying to fool? That is an outright lie and I resent it.
Why do people feel the need to misrepresent my position. I don't bash this stock, I question the many unsupported glowing positives that are presented on a daily basis and that is a very good thing.
Once
Mickey, that's a pretty positive spin you have put on that article.
I don't see it as a positive. IDCC worked very closely with Nokia over the last 4 years, we were told by the IDCC bulls it was because IDCC is on the leading edge of 3G. Now Hutchinson's new network that Nokia designed and installed doesn't work. We're not talking teething problems here. They are ripping out the network and replacing it with a network from someone who knows what they are doing:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=954703
Nokia still isn't selling WCDMA handsets although 6 or 7 other manufacturers are. I thought IDCC had given Nokia the market edge they needed to lead?
Once
Norfolk, I put in my educated guess of $18. Will you add me to the list?
Thanks,
Once
Interesting perspective Ziploc. You discuss the "bubbling forth" of the optimistic Conference Call of 3/17 and then the insider sales in the following two weeks, but you fail to make the connection between the two.
Is it at all possible that the bubbly optimism of 3/27 was to facilitate the profitable sales in the following two weeks? You then conclude with "I will admit though that I am puzzled by these insider sales."
Hmmmm.........Not too puzzling as long as you remember that IDCC insiders will always be more intimate with the details of their future prospects than any outsider could ever hope to be.
That's not speculation, it's just common sense.
Once
Sonetirot, I didn't yell "fire" at $8 or $9, who are you trying to fool? That is an outright lie and I resent it.
Why do people feel the need to misrepresent my position. I don't bash this stock, I question the many unsupported glowing positives that are presented on a daily basis and that is a very good thing.
Once
Good, I'm glad you were wise enough to pick it up in the single digits! I've done that myself a few times and it sure feels good. Really though, I can't take credit "for making you rich" but I'm flattered nonetheless.
BTW, if you are still holding all your wealth in the form of IDCC shares then is a very tenuous sort of "rich". A lot of people learned this the hard way.
Good luck!
Once
I guess if anyone would try to paint a positive spin on that article Mickey would.
I don't see how it's positive though. IDCC worked very closely with Nokia over the last 4 years, we were told by the IDCC bulls it was because IDCC is on the leading edge of 3G. Now Hutchinson's new network that Nokia designed and installed doesn't work. We're not talking teething problems here. They are ripping out the entire network and replacing it with a network from someone who knows what they are doing:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=954703
Nokia still isn't selling WCDMA handsets although 6 or 7 other manufacturers are. I thought IDCC had given Nokia the market edge they needed to lead?
Once
WSJ -- Nokia Falls Behind in Rollout Of 3G Mobile-Phone Services.
April 28, 2003
My Comment: The story we have been told was that Nokia hired IDCC to put them in the forefront of WCDMA. Now we see that didn't work. See the bolded part below.
Nokia Falls Behind in Rollout Of 3G Mobile-Phone Services
By DAVID PRINGLE, ALMAR LATOUR and KIMBERLY SONG
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Nokia Corp. has slipped behind rivals in rolling out equipment to support commercial third-generation mobile-phone services.
The Finnish company has bet heavily on a 3G technology called WCDMA, or wideband code division multiple access. The mobile-phone industry hopes that 3G technology -- designed to let people use their mobile phones for such things as downloading video and music files as well as for voice calls -- will give revenue a big boost. World-wide, seven major operators sell WCDMA handsets, but none offers one from Nokia.
Moreover, Nokia has supplied only a modest proportion of the base stations being used in the first commercial WCDMA networks. Base stations relay calls from an operator's network to consumers' handsets. Some operators say Nokia has missed deadlines to supply the equipment.
Although sales of WCDMA handsets amount to a tiny portion of the world mobile-phone market, analysts say Nokia needs to keep up with other suppliers -- such as Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson of Sweden, Siemens AG of Germany and NEC Corp. of Japan -- in rolling out commercial WCDMA networks.
Jason Chapman, a London-based analyst with U.S. research firm Gartner Inc., says involvement in commercial launches provides valuable experience and credibility. "Equipment makers that aren't in there will find it difficult when it comes up for the second round of contracts," he adds.
To be sure, other suppliers have had problems with WCDMA technology; some of the commercial networks drop calls and suffer other glitches. And Nokia's networks division is outperforming its rivals by some measures. Though its sales in the first quarter were down 15% from a year earlier, sales of mobile networks at Siemens were down an even steeper 22%.
But Nokia's networks division made an operating loss of €127 million, compared with €22 million for the Siemens unit. Nokia said the loss was partly from "the continuing high costs related to the first-phase implementation of 3G technologies."
Nokia, the world's largest maker of mobile-phone handsets, last year positioned itself as a leader in WCDMA, expected to be the dominant 3G technology. In September, it teamed up with Finnish operator Sonera Corp. to host an event at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki highlighting what they said was their frontrunner position in 3G. But Sonera, now part of TeliaSonera AB, doesn't expect to launch commercial WCDMA services until this year's second half.
A spokesman for TeliaSonera said his company won't launch until Nokia makes WCDMA handsets available to consumers in Finland and delivers software that will allow calls to be transferred between the operator's 3G and 2G networks.
Other operators relying heavily on Nokia equipment are hanging on. Neil Montefiore, chief executive officer of MobileOne (Asia) Pte. Ltd. in Singapore, said this month that MobileOne hopes to begins testing commercial network software from Nokia in mid-2003. It had hoped to launch a 3G service in the second half, but Nokia missed a delivery deadline last year and the operator has now postponed the launch to 2004.
While WCDMA handsets from makers including NEC and Motorola Inc. are on sale to consumers, Nokia's first still hasn't appeared in shops. J-Phone, a unit of Vodafone Group PLC, had been planning to sell the Nokia phone in Japan starting last December. A Nokia spokesman said his company has delivered more than 10,000 handsets to operators for testing, that the phone will go on sale to consumers "shortly" and that Nokia still regards itself as a frontrunner in WCDMA.
Another spokesman said that Nokia has supplied 17,000 WCDMA base stations to operators, including a "major part" of the live J-Phone network in Japan, and that "commercial [WCDMA network] software is available" from Nokia, but typically needs to be customized for each operator. Nokia said this month that its WCDMA network equipment "is well on track to support commercial launches in the coming quarters."
Jorma Ollila, chief executive officer of Nokia, said Nokia is being "realistic in terms of the time it takes to get the networks to be stable" and he dismissed the notion that Nokia's competitive position could be damaged by the cautious rollout.
But there are signs that some Nokia customers may be getting impatient. In Hong Kong, operator Hutchison 3G HK is dismantling parts of its WCDMA network after Nokia failed to make the technology work properly, according to a person familiar with the situation. Hutchison 3G HK, controlled by conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., is replacing Nokia base stations with equipment from an alliance between Siemens and NEC, this person said.
Hutchison 3G HK, which has been aiming to launch 3G services in Hong Kong by June, declined to comment. Nokia did likewise, citing a confidentiality agreement with Hutchison. In October, NEC acquired a 5% stake in Hutchison 3G HK.
Write to David Pringle at david.pringle@wsj.com, Almar Latour at almar.latour@wsj.com and Kimberly Song at kimberly.song@wsj.com
Updated April 28, 2003
Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.