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.
Corp_Buyer -- OK, that's where I suspected you were coming from -- just wanted to be sure I understood correctly. Thanks.
Corp_Buyer -- didn't today's 8-K indicate that Samsung has initiated the process -- or am I missing a point of interpretation you made? (not that I disagree at all with your overall view of this development -- I don't)
Desert_dweller -- don't share all of your views, but thanks for responding
ams -- you may consult you own crystal ball for predictions of the future
Desert_dweller -- are you going to respond to my point? -- I'd really like to know if I've missed something:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1486539
ams -- no, it doesn't (eom)
Desert_Dweller -- I believe your short-term cap gains v. long-term cap gains point re HG (and other IDCC insiders) is nothing but a straw dog, a red herring
specifically re HG: as clearly disclosed on the Form 4, these newly-acquired options shares are NOT his only shares -- he can sell OTHER shares that he HAS ALREADY held for more than 1 year, can he not? -- i.e., like any other shareholder, he can sell using the SPECIFIC LOTS method, and for that matter even the default FIFO method would also first sell from his long-term cap gains shares, right?
if you're not making the obviously incorrect assumption that these 15,000 shares HG just acquired are his only shares, then you are postulating that he can sell ONLY using a LIFO method -- what possible authority could you have for that?
mschere -- your point being? (eom)
mschere -- not those who sell to the company before the good news hits
re NOK's reply/NOK's motion to unseal -- the latest thoughts from loophole73 and from infinite_q make great sense to me, and I concur
goblue -- acknowledging that Data_Rox was absolutely correct in being cautious when he responded to my question on this point this am, this is great to hear -- thanks for relaying -- now if China will just get W-CDMA 3G licenses granted . . . !
This WOULD be the IDCC/Comneon FDD protocol stack, right? Or not? TIA.
Danny -- done. (eom)
biggeneg, re NOK reply -- any day now (eom)
Learning2vest -- I would add another serious level of concern to what you stated, being whether or not it even could have occurred to rmarchma to bother to take into account the impact posts such as his could have on IDCC's hopes of getting into the government/defense contracting end of things (where, among other considerations, a demonstrated ability to keep confidential stuff confidential is beyond crucial . . .)
re your plea to rmarchma, I submit that by his all-too-familiar pattern of behavior he has already long since made it as clear as can be that he has absolutely no genuine concern for anyone or anything beyond his relentless and self-aggrandizing drive to promote himself and his agenda -- this is hardly the first time his behavior has reached this kind of an extreme, and it won't be the first time if his current behavior backfires on all IDCC longs
JimLur -- I say leave rmarchma's post right where it is so everyone can see him for what he is; even if he does ask to have it deleted, that post should remain forever so that he cannot escape having made it.
Eneerg --
the company is not under any obligation to actually complete the buyback, in whole or in part -- if the price is higher than what they feel makes sense to pay to buy back shares, they simply won't
rmarchma -- "I’m hearing from sources who talk with people who talk to people . . ." -- what a truly extraordinary display of unabashed hearsay! -- LMAO -- and of course neither you, nor anyone in the layers of folks between you and anyone at IDCC alleged to have said anything remotely related to the subject matter of your post, put any selective or self-serving spin on anything, or injected any creative interpretation, on the way to your reaching your conclusions that "[t]hey would much rather see Bill Merritt take over the entire company", that "[t]he technology group headed by Briancon and Miller are . . . furious that the Nokia sure-thing was blown" [my comment -- WHAT 'Nokia sure-thing'? -- based on WHAT?], and that "the vast majority of IDCC rank and file employees, and many within management, would applaud and welcome any shareholder initiatives or pressures placed upon Campagna, Goldberg, and Tilden to resign" -- geez, now isn't that convenient -- and I'll bet those were the exact words, too -- ROFLMAO . . . classy, very classy, rmarchma, even if there is ever any degree of verification of any of this (quite doubtful, imo) . . . and btw, since you make no mention of him, I take it we are to assume Espy has in no way been involved in 'developing' this 'information'?
WAY over the top, even for you . . .
Corp_Buyer -- IDCC has not disclosed the voting rights of the poison pill stock, and my recollection is that when asked a company representative made clear the company had no intention of making that disclosure (at least not unless/until the pill were triggered), so as to keep any potential hostile bidder in the dark as to just what it might/would be up against if it did trigger the pill (highly likely imo that the BOD retains the ability to determine the voting rights attributes of the poison pill stock at the time of such a trigger) -- and I strongly agree (as I have posted a number of times in the past few years) that the class voting rights you and I both surmise could/would be there would be an extremely strategic point, as such class voting rights would categorically enable the poison pill stock to block that final cram-down merger that would inevitably have to be the final step in a hostile takeover (not to mention the voting rights such poison pill stock might have in terms of elections of directors . . .)
the classified BOD is crucial because it serves to make sure a potential hostile bidder can't just instead do an end run around the poison pill, at least not via, or within the time frame of, just one ASM -- such an end run around the poison pill proceeding as follows: the bidder would stop its accumulation of IDCC shares JUST under the poison pill theshhold (and for that matter it might even elect to stay under the 13d/13g 5% filing threshhold); then it would conduct a good old-fashioned proxy contest to try to get ITS slate for (at least a majority of the positions on) the BOD elected; then once that new BOD (a majority of which is) of ITS choosing is in place, the bidder would submit a 'friendly' offer to the (ITS) new BOD, which 'friendly' offer said new BOD would of course then accept, so that the poison pill actually would never even be triggered (and, accordingly, among other things, the poison pill shares would never exist to vote separately as a class on that final cram-down merger) . . . so long as we retain the classified BOD, such a 'proxy war' approach would have to continue, would have to be sustained, through (at least) two ASMs -- which among other things would give the company that much more time, (at least) one more full year, to increase the share price by progress toward its fundamental 2G/3G licensing goals (as well as toward other goals such as chips and licensing other standards), which in turn could/would potentially enormously increase the cost to the bidder for all the shares from and beyond the poison pill ownership threshhold that it would ultimately acquire even with such a 'friendly' BOD, given that any 'friendly' offer accepted by such a 'friendly' BOD would have to at least match the current share price at the time such 'friendly' offer were finally able to be thus made and accepted -- a VERY potent disincentive to attempting a takeover via such a 'proxy war' approach, IN PARTICULAR in the case of IDCC . . .
I submit we all should be concerned re a potential hostile takeover ('hostile' of course understood to include any 'end run around the poison pill' takeover via proxy contest effected as described in the foregoing paragraph) for so long as IDCC's share price continues to be so far below what it will be once the 2G and 3G licensing battles are resolved (and those battles WILL be resolved -- and even if the ultimate royalty rates are less than, even say half of, the c. 0.5% for 2g handsets/devices that we're apparently getting from Sony-Ericsson and the c. 1% for 3g that it seems reasonable we can generally hope for [thanks Data_Rox], IDCC's share price will still be MUCH higher than it is now [I would think somewhere well north of 50, anyway] -- that very background reality of course being THE very reason IDCC is so clearly and so much at risk for such a potential hostile takeover) (. . .)
hope the foregoing (terribly rambling, I know -- sorry, in a hurry) helps explain why I think it is so important that we retain the classified BOD, at least for now -- and who knows, once IDCC has nailed down all these 2G and 3G licensing battles, and its share price reflects those resolutions, I might even be happy to join you in supporting getting rid of the classified BOD; but not until then
take care
Corp_Buyer -- re HC I agree; but NOT re getting rid of classified BOD, which is in fact a critical element in defense v. hostile takeover (whether you'll ever concede that or not) -- to eliminate classified board merely to facilitate replacing HC is akin to the proverbial 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'; and on a practical level that couldn't be done till next ASM, and wouldn't be in effect until the votes on members of the BOD at the '05 ASM (where in reality a new COB is needed soon, well before the next ASM, let alone the '05 ASM) -- and isn't HC up for re-election ANYWAY at the next ASM? (and if not, then certainly at the '05 ASM . . .)
to promote getting rid of the classified BOD as if that has anything to do with replacing HC as COB, at this time in this circumstance, is to engage in misdirection -- at this time in this circumstance, the former is of no relevance to the latter, as the former would in no way hasten the next vote on whether to re-elect HC to the BOD
sophist -- I join the others who've said great post -- thanks
rmarchma, re Espy --
first off, and of course, I categorically reject your fundamentally self-serving/self-fulfilling premise that "the best way to affect[sic] positive and needed changes at IDCC is to replace the existing outside directors with better ones, who will be more responsive and accountable to the outside shareholders" -- this includes my rejection of the notion that the changes you and Espy seek would in balance be at all 'positive', and thus in corollary also of the notion that there is any 'need' for such changes -- and btw, in the quoted language, instead of saying 'the outside shareholders', which implies all outside shareholders, you really should have been honest and said 'the outside shareholders who happen to share Mr. Espy's and my agenda'
also btw, was this post of yours, or has any other post of yours ever been, required to have been, or in fact, reviewed by or on behalf of Mr. Espy before you posted it? -- and for that matter, are you/how long have you been on his payroll? -- like it or not, these are fair questions in light of your floating the trial-balloon that Espy would be an "ideal candidate" to replace any one of IDCC's current outside directors, especially as this is just the latest in a series of initiatives in his and your rank ambition to cram your arm-chair know-it-alls' agenda down IDCC's throat (and thus down the throats of all IDCC shareholders who, like me, strongly disagree with that agenda)
and just what exactly is(are) your and Espy's ultimate goal(s), anyway? -- to take over IDCC's BOD (and thus IDCC itself)? to force a wholesale change of management? to force a near-term sell-out of IDCC for a short-sighted short-term gain? -- again, a fair question to which I don't recall your or Espy's having ever provided a clear answer -- or did you indeed mean to confirm an answer of 'potentially all of the above' when you wrote "Myself[sic] and others are dreaming of a day when IDCC has top-notch capable leadership."?
but even if I did accept your fundamental premise, your assertion that there is any real basis in anything we know about Mr. Espy, either from what he has displayed or from what you have so carefully decided (or been allowed) to share from time to time, for concluding that he would be a 'better' replacement for any of IDCC's current outside directors, at least for any purpose other than your pursuit of his and your own agenda, is flatly ridiculous:
-- he evidently has no 'experience' in high-tech, let alone in telecommunications, let alone in wireless (even HC, in fact an 'inside' director, by now has meaningful such experience)
-- with your help, and using actual existing institutional investors as cover, he tried to stage an ambush meeting with HC that you both knew (or should have known) HC could not possibly permit under Reg FD -- leading directly to a significant short-term negative impact on IDCC's share price in the fallout after HC cancelled on short notice, as he had to do, upon finally learning that Espy was also to be at that meeting -- a stunningly 'professional' act of 'leadership' by Espy, indeed
-- he was the principal actor behind that options PR that just somehow managed to hit the wire identifying IDCC as its source, thus securing the PR vastly broader distribution and readership than it otherwise would have had (not to mention the outrageous use in the PR, without jimlur's prior knowledge or consent, of that iHub survey); and (in a coincidence?) in that PR he hid behind a consultant and remained anonymous, rather than having the character to at least identify himself, if not also his cohorts, as the source of the PR -- yet another stunningly 'professional' act of 'leadership' by Espy, I must admit (backed up by that boffo little performance of his at the last ASM -- a true 'professional' and 'leader', no doubt about it -- . . .)
-- that he is a friend of Steve Forbes is irrelevant (at best); does he have any OTHER 'extensive and important political connections' (whatever the hell that means; sounds like pig in a poke stuff to me) that we should know about, that could conceivably be of any direct relevance to IDCC's business and prospects? -- similarly, that he has been deeply involved in campaign fund-raising is also irrelevant (at best) (didn't Forbes run using only his own money, or was that someone else?)
-- so he "is very connected to some of the largest retail investment houses" -- so what? -- is the idea that as soon as he becomes a director they'll all just say 'hey, now THAT'S more like it' and come out with $50+ 'strong buys'? -- or is the idea perhaps instead that they'll all be looking to and lobbying him to put IDCC in play and throw them that nice little piece of business? -- and even if it is echoed by some of Espy's vaunted 'extensive and important Wall Street and financial connections' (once again, whatever the hell that means; sounds like more pig in a poke stuff to me), your and Espy's relentless whining about insider sales remains overblown hogwash, and is clearly indicative of a very short-term perspective that is highly unlikely to have anything to do with what is truly in the best interests of IDCC and its shareholders
-- he's been an IDCC shareholder since '97 -- well, so have I, and any number on these boards have been IDCC shareholders for far longer -- and likewise re his having been "an active investor in corporate securities for years" -- well, whoopdeedoo; most of us on these boards have been also
-- re he has "previously been a director of a public company" -- AND . . .?? -- what company? when? for how long? how did he get nominated and appointed/elected? what if anything in particular did he do for that company (or TO it) while he was a director? why isn't he still a director -- did the company get bought out or go out of business, or did he leave his directorship for some other reason? did the company prosper under his guiding hand, or did it flounder? -- it was a PUBLIC company, after all; if he's going to put forward his having been a director as some sort of reason why anyone should pay him any particular attention, he should also provide enough information so one could check the public information to see what that company's business was and how that company (and its share price) did during his tenure
so much for Espy's supposed qualifications to be a 'better' outside director of IDCC than any of the current ones . . .
a final thought -- any candidate to be a director of IDCC must be able to be trusted implicitly to keep confidential all that he will learn about IDCC that must be kept confidential, and also to not be a loose cannon who may just start making his own calls to whomever in pursuit of his own agenda should he ever happen to find himself in disagreement with his fellow directors and management; what I've learned of Espy thus far does anything but inspire my confidence in these absolutely crucial respects
ams -- dream on . . .
rmarchma -- take a look at their balance sheet and recurring royalty revenues, then versus now
ams -- I couldn't care less whether I have credibility with the likes of you -- go and try to bother someone else -- I'm not interested in your lame attempt to bait
rmarchma -- look at where the company was e.g. 4 years ago, and look at where it is today -- I see no need to belabor it beyond that
ams -- yeah, yeah, yeah, tell me something I don't know -- I'll have a substantially larger realized gain whenever I do sell -- and yes you do go on and on with your blind hatred for management
So maybe we'd collectively end up owning e.g. 1/10 of QCOM -- even with IDCC folded in, do you believe QCOM has a greater percentage appreciation potential from its current price, than a continuingly independent IDCC would have from such a takeover valuation? I don't -- not a chance of that, imo.
Also, I simply do not agree with the assertion, repeated endlessly by you and others, that IDCC is not a 'well run and managed company' -- I see a company in a VERY tough business that has made remarkable progress under its current management in recent years, and that is highly likely to make even more remarkable progress under that same management in the next few years.
BTW, even at the current share price, my unrealized gain right now is just under $750,000. Your recitation of the 'only' ones who have gained is simply not accurate.
ams -- you neglect to mention the one little fact that after a takeover none of us would own IDCC any longer, and thus that none of us would benefit from any resulting change in management -- suggest all you like, but my quite well-informed view, based not only on thorough dd re IDCC, but also on years of advising clients re takever defenses, is not going to change
Corp_Buyer -- guess we'll just have to agree to disagree re IDCC's classified board; I do not accept your view that it is a non-issue in terms of IDCC's takeover defenses -- btw the s/hers never get a vote re who's the COB, as it is the directors who elect the COB (the most we can do is not re-elect the director who is the COB) -- and thanks for the statistics showing I'm not the only one who disagrees with your dismissal of IDCC's classified board as a highly relevant component of IDCC's takeover defenses
Corp_Buyer -- On one point we do agree, at least to an extent -- as I first posted years ago: At the minimum, precisely given his excessive grants of options/RSUs/shares to himself in years past, Harry should resign as COB (I'd make Howard the new COB), and should never again take more than a director's minimum of options in any year that he continues as a director. (For the record, I voted against re-electing Harry the last time out.)
Corp_Buyer -- I assumed nothing, simply made a correct observation.
In particular given your background -- if you were truly opposed to a takeover, your position inevitably would reflect a much deeper understanding of the fact that the classified board structure has EVERYTHING to do with IDCC's ability to defend against a hostile takeover (in its own right, every bit as strategic as the poison pill). Your posturing to the contrary, re 'improving corporate governance and shareholder alignment', is unconvincing.
And I couldn't care less about the latest poll of the sentiment of institutions re classified boards in general -- institutions often enough operate within a short-term focus and welcome tactics that promise short-term gains.
Much more important to me is that IDCC, in terms of its even modestly longer-term percentage appreciation potential from its current price, is NOT just some stock whose current share price is possibly being hindered by some merely self-serving classified board setup.
"[. . .] repeal the classified BoD structure in favor of annual elections for all directors [. . .]"
Just a primary thing one who wants IDCC to be taken over would say (along with '[. . .] repeal the poison pill [. . .]').
If you have the background you claim, you know I'm correct in this observation.
Bill -- to Carol, you, all close to you -- Godspeed.
Ken -- seriously doubt any such offer could come before we're trading at at least around $70/share (if not closer to $90/share)
Joel -- exactly! -- the pre-existing shareholders of the acquiror would realize the great bulk of the full value of IDCC's matured business over and above the takeover price -- INSTEAD of and IN PLACE of IDCC's current longs, who would end up holding only a small piece of the acquiror, whose market cap in turn, even with IDCC folded in, would NOT have any chance of anywhere near the market cap appreciation potential percentage-wise after the takeover as the market cap of a continuingly independent matured IDCC would ultimately have had beyond the takeover price (not to mention that after the takeover the former IDCC shareholders who continued to hold the acquiror's shares could very well see the value of those shares actually dragged DOWN by the results of the acquiror's pre-existing non-IDCC business following the takeover, even if and as the former IDCC business folded into the acquiror goes great guns -- the landscape of takeover history is literally littered with such cases)
sure, if somebody comes along and offers $250/share (or some similarly HUGE premium over the current share price) right now or sometime soon, what the heck -- but back here on Planet Earth, where that just AIN'T gonna happen, I find it not only very easy but indeed imperative to reject out-of-hand ANY near-term deal, sight unseen or otherwise -- right now IDCC's longs own 100% of IDCC's ultimate market cap upside; following a takeover they would only indirectly hold a small percentage stake in that upside, buried in the already fully-valued market cap of a much larger, already-matured company -- NO THANKS
I should note that key to the foregoing is my opinion that IDCC in no way NEEDS to be bought ought in order for it to be able to continue executing on its business plan -- if I felt otherwise, it would of course alter my perspective significantly
and note that I am not addressing an acquisition by IDCC of, or a 'merger of equals' of IDCC with, another company with a complementary business that has its own market cap appreciation potential as an independent company that is similar to the market cap appreciation potential that IDCC has on its own -- I think that THAT type of deal, in theory, could be a good thing; I would evaluate any such proposed deal with an open mind
Joel -- imo, the utterly FATAL flaw in what you just said is that there is no company out there that could take over IDCC (at least none I can see) that, even with IDCC folded in, would have anywhere near the same market cap appreciation potential, over and above the market cap represented by the takeover price (which almost certainly would be no more than twice IDCC's market cap immediately before the takeover attempt goes public in ANY event, and very likely would be considerably below twice IDCC's market cap at that time), that a continuingly independent IDCC would continue to have had going forward -- put another way, there is no company out there that could take over IDCC (again, at least none I can see) that has the same ultimate market cap appreciation potential on its own, i.e. without a buyout of IDCC, as a continuingly independent IDCC has on its own
this will remain the case AT LEAST until IDCC is fully valued in the market AFTER (1) the NOK/Samsung/Sharp et al 2g issues have been resolved AND (2) all the big players have signed up for everything beyond 2G AND (3) enough additional time has passed for those events to have produced the top and bottom line results necessary for IDCC to have achieved the correpondingly appropriate market cap
there is no way around this -- any long who wants to see the full value of a matured IDCC must be prepared to hold the shares of a continuingly independent IDCC until the things set forth in the preceding paragraph have occurred, and must thus be absolutely opposed to ANY takeover of IDCC at ANY time in the interim -- we will NOT receive the full value of a matured IDCC by means of any takeover in that interim (including by continuing to hold the shares of the buyer following the takeover), and anyone who believes otherwise is, imo, simply mistaken
Corp_Buyer -- I've made my take on this matter VERY clear in my earlier posts. Your posts to me on this matter, including this latest one, have been (at best) consistently nonresponsive to the reasons I've stated for my take on this matter, and those posts have done nothing whatsoever to change my take on this matter. Going forward, I owe exactly NOTHING to you or to anyone else re my take on this matter. Accordingly, beyond this post, I will have nothing more to say to you regarding this matter.
In any event, it hardly matters much any longer anyway. The anonymous ones behind the PR did in fact get the enhanced distribution benefit for the PR that did in fact directly result from the misattributions, whether or not the misattributions were merely a (colosally incompetent) mistake compounded by a (colossally incompetent) failure by Ross Richardson and the anonymous ones behind the PR to promptly notice and correct the misattributions ON THEIR OWN. We'll know the one thing here that does matter, the result of the vote on Prop 2, in just about 4 days. Here's hoping your anti-Prop 2 crusade proves to have failed.
loop -- thank you for that clear and accurate statement; obviously, I fully agree (I'm really trying not to get going on this topic, so as not to provoke more discussion along such lines . . .)
rtd -- just click on "Report TOS Violation" in the area immediately below the lower right-hand corner of the post you want to report, and go from there