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.
look, this is the same guy who brought us (and profited handsomely from) that mind-of-mush 'hypester savant' Gilder . . .
if it were up to me, Marsala would never again get an answer to any of his questions from anyone at IDCC -- not on any conference calls, and not in any other context -- jumping directly into our business, getting in our way as we conduct our business, is simply not acceptable and will not be tolerated or supported in any way whatsoever
meddlesome putz, jumping in not only to bother UTStarcom re IDCC, but to then also publicly state 'nah, they're not gonna license w/ IDCC'
as if IDCC's task of getting companies like UTStarcom licensed wasn't already difficult enough
what an out-of-control jerk . . .
this is starting to get a little interesting -- won't be surprised to see some large/block trades cross near/just after today's close, given the relatively modest volume so far in comparison to the magnitude of the rise in price
Learning2vest -- look, I'm sorry I responded so bluntly to your first post -- felt you'd reached a dangerously incorrect conclusion without having enough information/understanding, and just reacted -- you actually did a damned good job trying to make sense of it -- all too easy for me to forget what a colossal exercise in forehead-flattening it can be for an experienced corporate/transactional attorney, let alone someone not saddled with such experience, to try and make sense of one of these plans, especially for the first time, and ESPECIALLY where a/the key piece of information/conceptual understanding for making sense of it is not even present in the information about the plan that is publicly available . . .
take care -- and whatever you do, do not take this smart-assed know-it-all's barbs too seriously, lol -- I respect and appreciate the effort you put into trying to figure this out -- in other words, "good on ya!" right back at ya!
L2v -- oh, you are SO close, but you have made one key mistake -- think 'stock that votes separately as a class' -- for the final step of the takeover, the cram-down merger, and quite possibly/likely for other things before any cram-down such as electing or removing directors, the buyer virtually certainly will need a separate (super-)majority vote of the poison pill shares as such, as well as and in addition to a sufficient vote of the common shares
(you won't find this detail in the publicly available information re the plan -- as is the standard practice with these things, the company quite deliberately, and quite properly, will not disclose such information, as it has indeed repeatedly made clear upon inquiry) (and I haven't even gotten into the further level that any poison pill shares sold to/held by the buyer or any affiliate will virtually certainly by definition have NO voting rights, NO votes, in those separate votes by the holders of the poison pill shares in any event)
so anyway, there's the lesson you requested; any chance you might want to revise your analysis and conclusion?
(fyi, I have WRITTEN a number of such shareholder rights plans for public companies . . .)
jkj -- OK, so my recollection was correct after all, notwithstanding the term 'final' in the PACER entries you've referenced -- I recall very clearly from the extensive board discussions in the late '00[/early '01?] timeframe that there was (or at the very least there was strongly believed to have been) a further revised 'truly final' version of the report (query whether there are any later PACER entries that reflect as much?) which has never not been sealed -- and in any event, the final report (whenever/whatever that was), as were the PSJs, was vacated at the time of the settlement and accordingly, just like the PSJs which have no continuing legal force or effect whatsoever, has no continuing legal force or effect whatsoever
thank you for your help on this -- perhaps some others here have their own recollections re there having later been a revised, 'truly final' Markman Report?
jkj -- that language refers only to the order itself, and NOT the documents vacated by that order
jkj -- OK, fair enough, and thanks for correcting my mistake; but wasn't it then re-sealed very soon thereafter, or perhaps the entry you reference was itself mistaken in calling it the final in that IDCC had not yet had its opportunity to submit and argue its objections?? -- the (truly) final Markman Report has never been seen on these boards, only a preliminary draft; if the (truly) final report had really been available, we would have seen it on these boards . . .
jkj -- the FINAL Markman Report has NEVER not been sealed -- what was unsealed way back when was merely a PRELIMINARY DRAFT -- and contrary to your assertions we have NO indications whatsoever at this point that the final Markman Report (which was vacated just like everything else when IDCC settled with ERICY) will EVER be unsealed
L2v -- your conclusion that the net impact of the poison pill would be at most $0.50/share is UTTERLY CLUELESS
If I'm IDCC, the only way I negotiate at all here is if what's in it for me is setting the 3G rate, for CDMA2000 and for that matter for TD-SCDMA as well as for W-CDMA, for NOK and Samsung at a rate(s) comparable to the rate(s) already set for IDCC's existing 3G licensees -- for that, and for that only, I might consider some compromise of the 2/2+G amounts due/rate going forward. For the record, I agree that yesterday's result was just fine -- it's all in the hands of the arbitrators now, and the clock is running for both NOK and Samsung . . .
loop -- I understand re the terms/dates of the ERICY/Sony-Ericsson settlement/licenses leaving 2002 as a period as to which NOK/Samsung can question just what their obligations really are; but it is not clear to me that IDCC's position re the obligations of NOK/Samsung for 2002 is at all far-fetched -- we'll see
loop -- I'll go with what Merritt said was his view re the sealed docs (the transcript of the cc says Fagan made those statements, but they sounded like Merritt to me), which of course is easy for me to do since he stated the same view I've had all along -- that there is NOTHING in the sealed docs that has ANY impact on IDCC's correct assertion that the Ericsson/Sony-Ericcson licenses are the trigger for NOK's, and thus Samsung's, TDMA-based 2-2.5G license obligations; and accordingly that there is NOTHING in the sealed docs that has ANY impact on IDCC's claims/position in either the NOK arbitration or the likely Samsung arbitration
(this post is also my response to your other recent posts re the sealed docs and NOK/Samsung)
mschere -- I know that; that is not what I was talking about
mschere -- maybe NOK can't "get some concessions from IDCC" -- IDCC should not be willing to negotiate this issue, as such, at all; MAYBE compromise just a little (not more than say 10-15% of the 2G rate/amounts due) to nail down a 3G rate schedule with NOK that is the SAME as NEC's 3G rate schedule, but otherwise, NO WAY -- a deal's a deal; IDCC has already done plenty of compromising to get that deal . . .
Robert V. Green, Briefing.com, writes (among other out-and-out bullspit): "most of the long term investors are still way, way, below their entry point"
as if he has anything resembling a freaking clue . . . I for one am at nearly twice my average entry point
what an idiot
Corp_Buyer -- Are you saying that what IDCC is doing is out of line, compared specifically to what other public companies operating under PA law are doing, and/or compared to what other public companies are doing in general? If so, based on what, exactly? And if not, what in blazes are you whining about?
The first part of our statement "The $1-2M increase in cost per year is certainly material and it reflects a high risk of shareholder lawsuit due to shareholder adverse decisions by the BoD." is overblown (at best), and the second part of that statement is rank speculation on your part (at best). (For now anyway, beyond adding that it very much IS in the best interests of IDCC's shareholders that IDCC keep its top executive talent, I'll forego further comment on other statements in your post.)
hey ronnie -- NICE GOING!!
press release with tables formatted:
(BSNS WIRE) InterDigital Announces Strong Third Quarter Financial Results;
95% Growth in Recurring Patent Licensing Revenue Drives Profitable Results
High-Tech Writers / Business Editors
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--IDCC--
InterDigital Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:IDCC), a
leading architect, designer and provider of wireless technology and
product platforms, today announced revenues of $26.8 million and net
income of $3.4 million, or $0.06 per share (diluted), for its third
quarter ended September 30, 2003. InterDigital's cash and short-term
investment position remained strong, ending third quarter 2003 at
$105.9 million, up $18.4 million versus year-end 2002. During third
quarter 2003, the Company expended approximately $44 million in
connection with the repurchase of two million shares of the Company's
stock under a previously announced share repurchase program and the
acquisition of substantially all of the assets of Tantivy
Communications, Inc.
Revenues in third quarter 2003 of $26.8 million (all of which were
recurring patent licensing royalties) increased $12.1 million, or 82%,
over third quarter 2002 revenues of $14.7 million. Third quarter 2002
revenue consisted of $13.8 million of recurring patent licensing
royalties and $0.9 million of specialized engineering services
revenue. The 95% increase in recurring patent licensing royalty
revenue was driven by $4.4 million related to 2003 patent license
agreements with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson, and an increase of $8.6
million in aggregate royalties from NEC Corporation of Japan, Sharp
Corporation and Sanyo Corporation (Sanyo). Included in third quarter
2003 revenue was $2.2 million related to a true up of Sanyo's actual
reported royalties in excess of estimates for first half 2003.
The Company reported net income of $3.4 million, or $0.06 per
share (diluted), for third quarter 2003, compared to a net loss of
$5.8 million, or $0.11 per share in third quarter 2002. Operating
expenses of $21.4 million increased 8% over third quarter 2002 and 2%
over second quarter 2003. The increase in operating expenses over
third quarter 2002 was due, in large part, to higher directors' and
officers' liability insurance premiums, patent licensing costs,
royalty related commissions costs and consulting costs associated with
a review and update of the Company's strategic plan. Included in third
quarter 2002 operating results was a provision for an estimated loss
of $1.2 million associated with an amendment to the Wideband Time
Division Duplex (WTDD) technology development agreement with Nokia.
Tax expense, which mainly consists of non-U.S. withholding taxes on
patent licensing royalties, increased in third quarter 2003 due to the
recognition of a higher level of royalties subject to such withholding
tax.
For first nine months 2003, revenues were $89.9 million, an
increase of 48% versus revenues of $60.8 million in first nine months
2002. The Company reported net income of $33.2 million for first nine
months 2003, or $0.55 per share (diluted), compared to a net loss of
$3.4 million, or $0.06 per share in first nine months 2002. Absent
non-recurring revenue items associated with the discontinuation of
sales of covered products by Kyocera in 2002 and past infringement
related to new patent license agreements in first nine months 2002 and
2003, adjusted first nine months 2003 revenue of $69.4 million would
have increased 51% over comparable first nine months 2002 revenue of
$46.0 million. As expected, no specialized engineering services
revenue from Nokia for WTDD technology development work was recognized
in first nine months 2003, resulting in a decrease of $4.5 million in
specialized engineering service revenue versus first nine months 2002.
"We've added licensees and the sales of our licensees have grown
over the past year. These are the key factors driving our revenue
growth and have contributed to profitability in each quarter of 2003,"
said Howard Goldberg, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We're
benefiting from increased replacement demand for mobile phones, driven
by innovative new products such as camera phones, and by the very
early stages of growth in WCDMA infrastructure and handset sales. As
we look forward, we're encouraged by consensus projections of higher
handset shipments in both fourth quarter 2003 and 2004.
"We're pleased to announce the successful completion of the WTDD
technology program under our development agreement with Nokia, an
agreement spanning over four years. Additionally, we're pleased that
Huawei Technologies chose Infineon, our partner and technology
licensee, as its supplier of handset technology to be included on its
WCDMA mobile phone platform. This handset solution includes embedded
technology jointly developed by Infineon and InterDigital. The first
commercial commitment for this product is an important market
milestone for both organizations.
"Of course, we continue to focus appropriate internal and external
resources toward the resolution of open patent licensing issues with
both Nokia and Samsung. The Nokia arbitration process is moving
forward. Absent a change in its position, we expect that Samsung will
file a demand for arbitration in the near future. We remain confident
and very committed to our position in these matters," concluded Mr.
Goldberg.
Rich Fagan, Chief Financial Officer, commented, "We're quite
pleased with the strong financial performance we've achieved in 2003,
including the significant increase in our recurring patent licensing
royalties over the past two quarters. The quantity, quality and
predictability of our revenue and cash flow streams continue to
improve. Looking forward, we expect to benefit from the continued
solid performance of our key licensees and to expand our licensee base
over the next twelve months. We also will recognize the final $1.0
million of specialized engineering services revenue related to the
Nokia WTDD agreement during fourth quarter 2003. We currently
anticipate that fourth quarter 2003 operating expenses could increase
5% - 10% over third quarter 2003 levels. Contributing to the increase
will be higher directors' and officers' liability insurance premiums.
Additionally, as we continue to grow our business, we expect to
increase our investment in marketing, patent licensing and employee
development activities."
About InterDigital
InterDigital architects, designs and provides advanced wireless
technologies and products that drive voice and data communications.
The Company offers technology and product solutions for mainstream
wireless applications that deliver cost and time-to-market advantages
for its customers. InterDigital has a strong portfolio of patented
technologies covering 2G, 2.5G and 3G standards, which it licenses
worldwide. For more information, please visit InterDigital's web site:
www.interdigital.com. InterDigital is a registered trademark of
InterDigital Communications Corporation. All other trademarks are the
property of their respective owners.
This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding,
among other things, our current beliefs, plans, and expectations as to
(i) demand for and shipments of handsets, (ii) the inclusion of our
technology in Huawei's WCDMA mobile phone platform, (iii) resolution
of patent licensing issues with Nokia and Samsung, (iv), our ability
to expand our licensee base and benefit from the performance of our
licensees, (v) our revenues, capital expenditures, and operating
expenses, and (vi) our ability to grow our business. Words such as
"expect", "continue", "projections", "anticipate", "forward, or
similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking
statements.
Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties.
Actual outcomes could differ materially from those expressed in
forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors in addition to
those specifically identified above including, but not limited to: (i)
the disputes, and the length and resolution of the disputes, as to the
applicability of the terms of the Ericsson and Sony Ericsson licensing
agreements to the royalty obligations of Nokia and Samsung under their
licensing agreements; (ii) the review, negotiation and dispute
resolution processes permitted under Nokia's and Samsung's license
agreements and the results therefrom; (iii) our ability to enter into
additional license agreements; (iv) a failure by any licensee to
realize our and market projections for sales of covered products and
the accuracy of market projections; (v) technical, financial or other
difficulties or delays related to our and/or Infineon's technologies
and products, and market acceptance thereof; (vi) the market share and
the performance of our licensees in selling their products, and our
ability to adequately prosecute, enforce and protect our patents and
other intellectual property rights; (vii) the market relevance of our
technologies; changes in technology preferences of strategic partners
or consumers; the availability or development of substitute or
competitive technologies; our ability to leverage our existing and
enter into additional strategic relationships; competitively priced
products and possess adequate manufacturing and distribution networks;
failure of the 3G market or the wireless data services market to
materialize in the manner, scope or time frame anticipated, the
ability of operators to deliver 3G services in volume; the success of
underlying 3G technology; and the successful delivery of
differentiated applications by 3G products; (ix) the effects of global
economic conditions and governmental licensing decisions, and (x)other
factors listed in the Company's most recently filed Form 10-K, Form
10-Q, and Forms 8-K. We undertake no duty to publicly update any
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information,
future events or otherwise.
-0-
*T
SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Periods Ended September 30
(Dollars in thousands except per share data)
(unaudited)
For the Three Months For the Nine Months
Ended Ended
Sept. 30, Sept. 30,
--------------------- ---------------------
2003 2002 2003 2002
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
REVENUES: $ 26,790 $ 14,706 $ 89,891 $ 60,804
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Sales and marketing 1,330 1,075 3,473 3,447
General and
administrative 4,567 3,248 13,305 11,011
Patents administration
and licensing 4,263 3,019 11,338 9,339
Development 11,253 12,441 34,054 36,072
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
21,413 19,783 62,170 59,869
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Income (loss) from
operations 5,377 (5,077) 27,721 935
OTHER INCOME - - 10,580 -
NET INTEREST INCOME 405 525 1,298 1,580
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Income (loss) before
income taxes 5,782 (4,552) 39,599 2,515
INCOME TAX PROVISION (2,317) (1,246) (6,249) (5,785)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Net income (loss) 3,465 (5,798) 33,350 (3,270)
PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS (34) (35) (101) (103)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
NET INCOME (LOSS)
APPLICABLE TO COMMON
SHAREHOLDERS $ 3,431 $ (5,833) $ 33,249 $ (3,373)
========== ========== ========== ==========
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER
COMMON SHARE - BASIC $0.06 $(0.11) $0.60 $(0.06)
========== ========== ========== ==========
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
- BASIC 55,912 52,956 55,475 52,762
========== ========== ========== ==========
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER
COMMON SHARE - DILUTED $0.06 $(0.11) $0.55 $(0.06)
========== ========== ========== ==========
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
- DILUTED 60,109 52,956 60,192 52,762
========== ========== ========== ==========
SUMMARY CASH FLOW
For the Periods Ended September 30
(Dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Three Months For the Nine Months
Ended Ended
Sept. 30, Sept. 30,
--------------------- ---------------------
2003 2002 2003 2002
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Net income (loss) before
pref. stock dividends $3,465 $(5,798) $33,350 $(3,270)
Depreciation &
amortization 2,742 3,010 7,996 8,569
Increase in deferred
revenue 1,500 - 55,988 59,250
Deferred revenue
recognized (16,612) (7,029) (44,984) (35,735)
Decrease (increase) in
operating working
capital, deferred charges
and other 33,517 11,125 2,687 (17,664)
Capital spending & patent
additions (3,805) (2,873) (8,574) (8,032)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
CASH FLOW BEFORE
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
AND ASSET ACQUISITION 20,807 (1,565) 46,463 3,118
Increase in notes
receivable - - (1,446) -
Acquisition of Tantivy
assets (10,430) - (10,430) -
Debt decrease & preferred
dividends (48) (132) (183) (401)
Net stock (acquired)
issued (32,320) 242 (16,042) 3,502
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
NET (DECREASE) INCREASE
IN CASH AND SHORT-TERM
INVESTMENTS $ (21,991) $ (1,455) $ 18,362 $ 6,219
========== ========== ========== ==========
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)
Sept. 30, 2003 Dec. 31, 2002
-------------- --------------
Assets
-----------------------------------------
Cash & short-term investments $105,928 $87,566
Accounts receivable 52,978 53,486
Other current assets 4,747 7,627
Property & equipment (net) 12,363 14,091
Patents (net) & other non-current assets 41,907 28,408
-------------- --------------
TOTAL ASSETS $217,923 $191,178
============== ==============
Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity
-----------------------------------------
Current portion of long-term debt $199 $189
Accounts payable & accrued liabilities 13,849 14,124
Foreign & domestic taxes payable 2,953 5,434
Deferred revenue 101,674 90,670
Long-term debt & long-term liabilities 3,439 1,970
-------------- --------------
TOTAL LIABILITIES 122,114 112,387
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY 95,809 78,791
-------------- --------------
TOTAL LIABILITIES & SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY $217,923 $191,178
============== ==============
*T
mack12 -- the score I have for you, based on your own words, is that you are a liar and a spammer -- amusing how you keep confirming that score -- no honor, no shame; great way to be, you 'jock' you
today's block trades were:
50,000 x 1
30,000 x 1
16,800 x 1
10,000 x 4
Hey mack --
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=766938
get lost, spammer
(COMTEX) B: Regulatory Review: Future Mobile Satellite Spectrum Needs ( VIA Satellite/PBI
Media )
Nov 01, 2003 (VIA Satellite/PBI Media via COMTEX) -- The original glowing
predictions for Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) are tempered by reality, but
pushing and shoving continues regarding future MSS spectrum requirements.
European spectrum managers met in the splendor of Saint Petersburg, Russia, in
mid September this year to continue the battle over future allocations.
No story about satellites is complete without acronyms. The spectrum managers
from the European Electronic Communications Committee (ECC) Project Team 1 (PT1)
deal with what the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) calls
International Mobile Telephony-2000 (IMT-2000) and the rest of the world calls
3G. In response to a request by the European Commission (EC), PT1 is focusing on
frequency arrangements for the band 2,500-2,690 MHz (the 2.6 GHz expansion
band). The Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems Task Force (ASMS-TF) represented
MSS and other satellite operators at the PT1 meeting.
These acronyms have had a long time to grow, as there is more than a decade of
argument regarding frequencies for IMT-2000 service. Initial frequency bands
were identified as early as the ITU's 1992 World Administrative Radio
Conference. By 2000, the ITU identified certain frequencies, including the 2.6
GHz expansion band. This saga continued at the ITU's radio conference in 2003,
which called for yet more study before the next such conference in 2007 on
spectrum requirements and potential frequency ranges suitable for IMT-2000
(which will need an updated name, certainly by 2007).
On the European side, in 2001 the EC requested European spectrum managers to
develop and adopt measures necessary to ensure availability of harmonized
frequency bands within the additional spectrum bands identified by WRC-2000.
This instigated a big fight between terrestrial and satellite interests in the
2.6 GHz band, and whether the terrestrial operators should get the entire piece
of spectrum.
The bands 2,500-2,520 MHz and 2,670-2,690 MHz are allocated on a co- primary
basis to MSS and other services in accordance with the Radio Regulations. So it
is this 2 x 20 MHz sliver of spectrum that is at issue: should satellite
networks in Europe have access to that spectrum or should it instead be
dedicated solely to terrestrial 3G services?
This issue was partially finessed throughout 2001 and 2002. The ECC conclusion
in response to the EC's 2001 question was that it was "too early" to specify
between satellite and terrestrial. Of course, the issue did not go away. In
August 2003, the EC made a new request for ECC action, putting the controversy
squarely on the table by stating "it is necessary to investigate and decide on
detailed spectrum usage parameters as well as whether or not and to which extent
the satellite component of IMT-2000 could use parts of this additional
spectrum." This question must be decided by the end of 2004, and the Saint
Petersburg meeting shows it will not be easy.
The ASMS-TF is made up of numerous entities engaged in the satellite mobile
industry. It quite naturally submitted a forecast of MSS traffic and spectrum
requirements up to 2010 that demonstrates a need for MSS to have access to the 2
x 20 MHz of 2.6 GHz spectrum.
The ASMS-TF paper outlined the commercial services that commenced since 1998 and
noted some new MSS satellite systems known to be under construction. Regardless
of construction plans, it is unlikely, in the view of ASMS-TF, that any new
system will be introduced before 2007.
Nevertheless, forecasts still show a "significant opportunity" for satellite
services to provide 3G fill-in and multicast broadcasting. New satellite
personal communication networks reduced terminal size and price, thus opening
the markets. New services are developing and satellite mobile services should
continue to grow, even though the growth rate may slow unless new market
segments open.
The bottom line in the paper was that MSS will need 2 x 151.2 MHz of spectrum by
2010, in excess of the 2 x 121.5 MHz it has allocated now, which supports the
requirement to use the portion of MHz in the 2.6 GHz expansion band.
This argument was apparently not received well in Saint Petersburg. In
particular, German regulators continued to dismiss the satellite argument. They
said from the beginning that the entire band should be used for terrestrial
service. The terrestrial operators supplied their own brand of statistics and
forecasts as well.
Even the minutes of the meeting note diplomatically that "an intensive
discussion" took place regarding the ASMS-TF data, which was "questioned."
Regulators noted that some of the ASMS-TF data is based on general MSS service
and not 3G itself. To avoid deciding the matter, however, the spectrum managers
in Saint Petersburg decided to defer review of the MSS statistics until the next
meeting in January 2004.
This is to say that the satellite perspective has survived for yet another day,
but the battle lines are clearly sketched out.
Gerry Oberst is a partner in the Brussels office of the Hogan & Hartson law
firm. His email address is geoberst@hhlaw.com .
[Copyright 2003 PBI Media, LLC. All rights reserved.]
VIA Satellite, Vol. 18, No. 11 [Copyright 2003 PBI Media, LLC. All rights
reserved.]
by Gerry Oberst
Copyright 2003 PBI Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
-0-
*** end of story ***
Hey mack --
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=766938
and spam your xm somewhere else
(REUTERS) Europe mobile phone games set for blast-off -study
LONDON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Warding off alien attacks or
hunting down spies on your mobile phone will become a three
billion euro ($3.43 billion) pastime in the next five years as
mobile games aim for lift-off in Europe, a study on Thursday
said.
The market for mobile phone games is a small but growing
segment of the massively popular video game market, an
estimated $30 billion global market that rivals movie box
office sales.
British market research firm Analysys Ltd forecast in the
study that the mobile gaming market is set to grow from 200
million euros in 2002 to nearly three billion euros in 2008 as
the proliferation of smart phones equipped with colour screens
and enhanced capabilities continues.
The introduction of the N-Gage, a new gaming phone by the
world's biggest handset maker, Nokia <NOK1V.HE>, plus the
increased number of downloadable games on the Web will also
trigger demand, the report said.
Nokia, which developed the most popular mobile game, the
decidedly low-tech "Snake," said last month it expected to ship
some 100 million phones equipped with colour screens, java
software, and enhanced messaging options in 2004.
"Java handsets have become more widely available over the
last 18 months, and mass-market interest in mobile gaming has
grown strongly as a result," says the report's lead author,
Rachael Beale.
The promising forecast is good news for Europe's mobile
phone operators, which are desperate to recoup the massive
investments they made in the roll-out of 3G phone networks.
((Writing by Bernhard Warner
Editing by Steve Addison
Reuters Messaging:
rm://bernhard.warner.reuters.com@reuters.net
Email: bernhard.warner@reuters.com
European Equities Desk +44 20 7542 2490))
($1=.8741 Euro)
REUTERS
*** end of story ***
Eneerg -- "Mitsushita" apparently being the result of the unannounced recent merger of Matsushita and Mitsubishi, lol
New processor computes at light speed
Friday, October 31, 2003 Posted: 10:29 AM EST (1529 GMT)
HERZLIYA, Israel (Reuters) -- An Israeli start-up has developed a processor that uses optics instead of silicon, enabling it to compute at the speed of light, the company said.
Lenslet said its processor will enable new capabilities in homeland security and military, multimedia and communications applications.
"Optical processing is a strategic competitive advantage for nations and companies," said Avner Halperin, vice president for business development at Lenslet.
"Processing at the speed of light, you can have safer airports, autonomous military systems, high-definition multimedia broadcast systems and advanced next-generation communications systems."
An optical processor is a digital signal processor (DSP) with an optical accelerator attached to it that enables it to perform functions at very high speeds.
"It is an acceleration of 20 years in the development of digital hardware," Lenslet founder and Chief Executive Officer Aviram Sariel said.
The processor performs 8 trillion operations per second, equivalent to a super-computer and 1,000 times faster than standard processors, with 256 lasers performing computations at light speed.
It is geared towards such applications as high resolution radar, electronic warfare, luggage screening at airports, video compression, weather forecasting and cellular base stations.
Lenslet said its Enlight processor, unveiled at the MILCOM exhibition in Boston this month, is the first commercially available optical DSP.
Jim Tully, vice president and chief of research for semiconductors and emerging technologies at Gartner Inc, said most companies working with optics focus on switching optical signals for telecommunications rather than processing information optically.
"I'm not aware of any company that has taken it to the extent of processing optically," he said.
Lenslet has raised $27.5 million so far from such investors as Goldman Sachs, Walden VC, Germany's Star Ventures and Chicago-based JK&B Capital.
Shrinking it down
The company's prototype is fairly large and bulky but when Lenslet begins to supply the processor in a few months it will be shrunk to 15 x 15 cm with a height of 1.7 cm, roughly the size of a Palm Pilot.
"In five years we plan to shrink it to a single chip," project manager Asaf Schlezinger said.
Tully said one issue is whether this technology can be produced in volume the way silicon chips are made.
"Because semiconductor manufacturing technology is well developed, you can produce millions at quite low cost," said Tully, who is not familiar with Enlight.
Lenslet said its processor will be competitive in price with a multi DSP board.
Negotiating deals
Sariel is negotiating joint projects with companies and/or government agencies in the United States, Europe and Japan to produce the processor for specific applications. It already has projects signed with Israel's Defense Ministry.
"We don't rule out licensing our technology to others," Sariel said. "We are looking at a virtual production line where production is done by others and we provide testing equipment."
Tully said semiconductor companies are working on technology that would use optical channels inside a chip to allow very high speed communication from one part of a chip to another.
"It's conceivable this technology could become mainstream inside chips in 10 years time," Tully said.
Copyright 2003 Reuters. All rights reserved.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/10/31/israel.lenslet.reut/index.html
Patent Office Problems Stifle Innovation, Economy
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
By Jim Prendergast
Technology innovation is both the lifeblood of our economy and the driving force of everyday improvements in our lifestyle. But all that is threatened by problems in a government agency which few of us ever think about.
That agency is the Patent and Trademark Office (search ), where existing troubles are real and destined to get worse unless Congress acts.
While we take patents for granted, we seldom stop to think about the overwhelmingly positive impact that patents have on our economy. Copyright industries, including the software industry, contributed $791 billion to the U.S. economy in 2001 and are growing faster than the rest of the U.S. economy, according to a key study. The licensing of U.S. patents contributed an additional $150 billion to the economy, according to KPMG. Intellectual property protections are particularly vital to innovation and investment in the information technology industry.
All this is, of course, good news. The bad news is that the Patent and Trademark Office, as currently funded, is buckling under the growing demands placed on it. Currently, more than 450,000 patent applications are waiting to be reviewed and the lag time between application for and issuance of a patent is about 27 months. This number is expected to rise to nearly 45 months by 2008 without additional resources. If the Patent Office grinds to a near halt it will not only adversely impact our economy but will also slow the introduction of new products that enhance our standard of living.
Most Americans are aware that the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications for patents and grants legal protection -- in effect, property rights -- for those who demonstrate innovation and original ideas. This patent protection is critical to business in the information technology industry. Patents are often a technology company’s most important asset and are critical to attracting investment, creating value and enabling mergers and acquisitions. In addition, patents are needed when we have to share our software or technical information widely in order to promote standards and inter-operability.
Fortunately, a fix is available. In fact, it has already been approved by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The pending legislation to address the plight of the Patent Office is H.R. 1561 (search). There are two key provisions in the bill -- and they must be retained as the legislation works its way through Congress if the Patent Office is to be brought into the 21st century.
First, H.R. 1561 would increase the level of fees for a patent application anywhere from 15 to 25 percent depending on the technical field. The industry is widely supportive of increasing fees, knowing this will help shorten the huge delays.
This, in turn, leads to the second key provision of the pending legislation: that all patent application fees go to the Patent Office. Many Americans are unaware that the Patent Office receives all of its funding from fees paid by its users. Unfortunately, during the past 12 years, more than $650 million of these funds have been diverted to pay for unrelated government programs.
This diversion has drained vitally needed funds from a key government agency in what many now recognize as unwise public policy. Therefore, many business organizations, along with the Bush administration and leading members of Congress from both parties, are joining together to work toward passage of H.R. 1561. Support for the reform embodied in the bill is bi-partisan and widespread.
In Congressional testimony earlier this year, Commerce Secretary Don Evans said that “to support technology innovation and provide for intellectual property protection, the [Commerce] Department is working to eliminate the practice of using [Patent Office] revenues for unrelated federal programs.”
Congressman Howard Berman of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, called the practice of diverting Patent Office funds to other agencies a tax on innovation that should be ended. He noted that “life-enhancing, job producing” innovations are likely trapped within the application backlog at the Patent Office.
These comments represent a growing awareness that short-changing the Patent and Trademark Office stifles innovation. For the sake of consumers who benefit from this innovation, Congress should act promptly to fully fund the Patent and Trademark Office. If it does, there are no losers. More importantly, there are many winners.
Jim Prendergast is the executive director of Americans for Technology Leadership.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101480,00.html
jai -- IDCC "gave into" ERICY re past (pre-1/1/02) royalty payments precisely due to, and for no reason other than, IDCC's corresponding prior settlement with NOK -- a point that evidently continues to escape you
what is pertinent now is that from 1/1/02 forward ERICY/Sonicsson agreed to reasonable royalties for TDMA-based 2[+]G, and that those same royalties are properly applicable to and binding upon NOK/Samsung -- period, no matter NOK's or Samsung's all-too-predictable initial antics/ploys in protest/response
your lecturing the rest of us re what NOK must want and/or what IDCC must/should/might give in trade, all notwithstanding NOK's and Samsung's clear contractual obligations to IDCC in the immediate situation, has since become quite tiring -- you certainly do posture as if you have some particular background such that the rest of us really ought to be paying attention to/adopting your by-now repetitively reiterated (and not even well-focused) little polemic/rant re IDCC/NOK; do you, in fact, have any such background?
(COMTEX) B: Heartland's Bill Nasgovitz - Recognized as One of the 5 Best Fund Managers
by CNBC MSN-Money
MILWAUKEE, Oct 27, 2003 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Heartland Advisors, Inc., America's
Value Investor(R), is very proud to announce that the company's president, Bill
Nasgovitz, has been recognized as one of "The 5 Best Fund Managers in the
Business" by CNBC MSN-Money. As stated in their October 14, 2003 publication,
this award was based on the Heartland Value Fund's (ticker:HRTVX) total returns,
as well as objective and subjective analysis by CNBC MSN-Money of data provided
by Morningstar. As of September 30, the one-, five- and ten-year average annual
total returns for the Value Fund were 54.52%, 17.05%, and 14.25%.(a)
The editors at CNBC MSN-Money believe the fund managers on this list are
"Winners in good times and bad, they're not just lucky - they're great." Founder
of the firm, Mr. Nasgovitz has been portfolio co-manager of the Heartland Value
Fund since its inception in December 1984. Over that 18+year period, the Value
Fund has provided shareholders with an average annual total return of 15.47%. As
a result, $1,000 invested in the Value Fund when it first opened would now be
worth $14,848.(b)
At Heartland, we are pleased to be recognized for our investment experience and
disciplined philosophy that has produced long-term results for our shareholders.
"Using our time-tested, value-driven philosophy and process," said Mr.
Nasgovitz, "all of our Funds focus on identifying and investing in companies we
believe are undervalued relative to their earnings, cash flows, and book
values." As of September 20, 2003, Heartland managed over $2.4 billion in
assets, including our flagship Value Fund, as well as the Heartland Select Value
(ticker:HRSVX) and Value Plus (ticker:HRVIX) Funds. It's always a great time to
be a Heartland value investor!
For more complete information about the Funds, including management fees and
expenses, call 800.432.7856 for a prospectus. Please read it carefully before
investing.
The Funds invest in stocks of small companies that may be more volatile and less
liquid than those of larger companies. The Select Value and Value Plus Funds
also invest in a smaller number of stocks (generally 30 to 50) than the average
mutual fund. The change in value of a single holding may have a more pronounced
effect on the Fund's net asset value and performance than for other funds.
Value-based investments are subject to the risk that the broad market may not
recognize their intrinsic values.
(a) Past performance does not guarantee future results. Investment
return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that
an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less
than their original cost. All returns reflect reinvested
dividends, but do not reflect the deduction of taxes that an
investor would pay on distributions or redemptions. Performance is
as of date indicated and current performance may differ due to
market volatility. For current performance information, please
call 800.432.7856.
(b) Growth of $1,000 represents a hypothetical investment in the Fund
since inception (12/28/84). All returns reflect reinvested
dividends, but do not reflect the deduction of taxes that an
investor would pay on distributions or redemptions.
According to MSN Money, their editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal
finance and investment ideas. Their articles should not be construed as
investment advice, or imply an endorsement by Microsoft. An investor's best
course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
SOURCE: Heartland Advisors, Inc.
CONTACT: Heartland Advisors, Inc.
Aaron Picard, 414-977-8708
apicard@heartlandfunds.com
Copyright (C) 2003 Business Wire. All rights reserved.
-0-
*** end of story ***
spree99 -- yup (eom)
OT: zit -- you're hilarious (eom)
phigorbo -- well, at least the article shows that the Chinese government is 'talking the talk' in saying publicly to its own people that IPRs must be honored and protected in China -- we'll just have to see how the 'walking the walk' part goes . . .
(COMTEX) B: Roundup: Chinese businesses pay for lack of IPR awareness
by Ding Zhisong, Jiang Xueli ( Xinhua )
BEIJING, Oct 23, 2003 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- Chinese businesses are worrying
that a multi-million-dollar intellectual property rights (IPR) war is looming
after a spate of lawsuits over alleged infringements in recent months.
Late last month, the Beijing-based New Oriental Education Group, China's leading
private English language school, was ordered by a local court to pay 10 million
yuan (1.2 million US dollars), in compensation to two US plaintiffs for
copyright and trademark infringements.
In mid October, the China Music Copyright Society lodged a claim against TCL,
one of the country's largest mobile phone manufacturers, for 12.8 million yuan
(1.55 million US dollars) for the unauthorized use of music under copyright
protection. The case has yet to be decided.
Meanwhile, the Guangdong-based Kelon Electric Appliances Co. has decided to take
legal action against Haier and Xinfei, both name brands in the Chinese home
appliances market, for copying the patented designs of its refrigerators. Kelon
is seeking 10 million yuan (1.2 million US dollars) in compensation.
This case, the first of its kind in China's refrigerator industry, is scheduled
to go to court in Foshan city of south China's Guangdong province in November
this year.
"As an imminent IPR and patent war is looming large, domestic companies should
learn to do business in the long term," said Prof. Zhang Chu, a noted Beijing
expert in IPR law. "You may make some money by infringing upon others'
copyrights and patents in the short term, but sooner or later you will have to
pay dearly for it.
"Many local enterprises lack IPR and patent awareness, and have ignored the
protection of patents and copyrights for years," said Zhang.
In January 1997, industry and business administrators in the Chinese capital
confiscated from the New Oriental Education Group illegal copies of original
test questions of the US-sponsored TOEFL, GRE and GMAT exams. The group
confessed to its copyright infringement in a written document, but failed to
stop the practice.
Some prestigious Chinese law experts acknowledged that it is quite common for
businesses at home and abroad do business with the unauthorized use of
copyrights, patents or trademarks, though they know it illegal.
Chinese manufacturers of DVD players have to pay additional 4.5 US dollars for
each DVD player they produce to Hitachi, Matsushita, Toshiba and other Western
firms which own patent rights on essential technologies.
To date, they have paid a total of 3 billion yuan (some 360 million US dollars)
in patent licensing fees.
Quite a few domestic firms have incomplete and incorrect understandings of the
law. In New Oriental's case, the most controversial point lay on the issue of
whether used test questions should enjoy the copyright protection. Law experts
noted that it is legal to acquire public information via public channels,
nevertheless it will involve copyright infringement to use exclusive, private
and other non-public information, such as test questions, for profit-making
purposes.
TCL also voiced dissent on related legal problems in its case. The company held
that it only illegally used episodes of musical pieces as its cellphone rings,
which should be differentiated from the piracy of whole songs on CDs. And it
argued that the claimed compensation should be below 500,000 yuan (about 60,500
US dollars) .
Patents, a major form of intellectual property rights, have aroused increasing
attention from overseas investors.
"Multinationals, such as Matsushita, IBM and Nokia, have all flocked to apply
for patents covering fields of wireless telecommunications, photoelectricity and
information technology on the Chinese mainland since 1999," Yuan Jianzhong, a
member of a Taiwan-based institute for the information industry.
Experts on IPR are concerned that foreign firms may wage a new round of patent
warfare against domestic companies later this year or next year.
"China should intensify the IPR awareness among the whole society and further
improve the enforcement of laws in protection of the legal rights and interests
of intellectual property owners. Domestic enterprises are encouraged to innovate
technologies on their own and to apply for patents quickly," said Zhang Qin,
deputy director of the State Intellectual Property Office.
Zhang stressed that the building of policies and regulations on IPR protection
in China should be strengthened to meet the common international standards.
Enterprises should incorporate a sensitivity to IPR into their own operations
and management, Zhang noted, adding that companies with big market shares were
likely to be caught in lawsuits if they copied the main technologies on market
without their own patent.
Copyright 2003 XINHUA NEWS AGENCY.
-0-
*** end of story ***
OT: teecee -- u forgot 'overbaked' (eom)
OT: Data_Rox -- from the article you provided:
"Mr. Gilder, however, is no wacko [. . .]"
oh yes he was, and always has been . . . he never could think clearly enough to put his con over in real words, so he relentlessly resorted to the breathless gibberish of his very own dully made-up and ever so flowery and meaningless language to try to cover his utter and shameless confusion . . . he of all persons truly deserves to go completely and finally belly up, both financially and in terms of what will be the forever baffling phenomenon of the credulity of those who ever in any way took him seriously . . . LMAO
OT: spree99 -- totally inappropriate, as was your mentioning it AGAIN in your last post to sailfreeee -- spamming one of your current investments other than IDCC here is simply not acceptable, and so is your mentioning xmsr for that matter; neither has anything to do with IDCC -- cease and desist NOW
spree99 --
leave SIRI out of this -- not only does it have nothing to do with IDCC, it is nothing like IDCC and its situation is nothing like IDCC's -- it is totally inappropriate for you to have linked the two here in the present discussion as you have done
olddog967 --
I've invested because I believe the stock price will reach my own oft-stated target of 'somewhere well north of 50', and that belief is based on my own current assessment of the fundamentals and the potentials of the company. This is a high-risk investment, as reflected by the current stock price, and one imo best suited for the patient investor able to take a loss and prepared for a ride that may be rough at times. And of course, the stock price may never reach my target -- but I for one have made a substantial bet to the contrary, one that I recently substantially upped, and I continue to feel entirely comfortable with that bet.
You have to do your own dd and then you have to integrate whatever you thus conclude about IDCC as an investment with all the pertinent factors of your own situation. I'm not even going to think about undertaking the exercise of putting together and presenting a thesis that details, and explains how and why I've reached, my own current assessment of the fundamentals and potentials of the company -- I think there is already plenty for anyone to consider in terms of the information that has been provided by the company, the various analyst reports that have become available over the last year or so, and the extensive discussions of every possible point, many of those discussions including my specific input, that have taken place (primarily) here since the beginning of this year.
Good luck.