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.
Quartzman, contact your broker
Most will buy worthless securities from you for $1 to allow you to close the position. But be sure you want to do that because you are really selling it. If IDCC signs the big 4 next week and the price rockets you no longer own those options. Odds of it happening in your time frame are miniscule, but ya never know. I just had a thought, I seldom buy lottery tickets, but if you are have trouble selling, I'll buy it from you for a buck!
Be aware that you can only write off $3,000 of capital losses in excess of capital gains, so if you already have over $3,000 of losses in 2007 there is no reason to accelerate the loss into 2007.
If you have any further questions send me a PM or e-mail and I'll help you off line. I'm a CPA, so if you have questions on any of the tax issues I can help you.
DD, thanks for pointing out the obvious
mschere, you can't even get the best of an argument when you cherry pick my old post and your comment is in hindsight. I only have one question for you...
Wanna bet? TIA
ROFLMAOAY
JimLur, that was hilarious
http://wirelessledger.com/TennesseeMath.wmv
This shows much better than I could ever explain what it's like to argue with mschere.
Since my post putting on record that mschere declined the wager was deleted because I quoted his PM, I needed to repost that fact. This clip helped me keep it lighthearted so that hopefully no one will reply.
Frank
Congrats on post 200,000
You were pretty tricky getting it
with
those
one
word
posts.
LOL
To clarify
In the referenced post the italicized statement was the copy of mschere's post to me, not my comment to/about mschere.
I have no smoking gun on mschere or his motives. My comments are based on his misleading (IMO) posting style. I did not mean to insinuate that I had any inside information about him.
mschere, I can live with that.
I still think your a low life, uninformed, piece of sh-t.EOM
For those that want to support me, please don't post (yes, you, dmiller) to the board. Just let it go. I honestly laughed when I read his post. I have no respect for his intellectual honesty so what he said about me doesn't bother me.
The point of my original post is to try to expose mschere to those out there that think he is a good source of information. He is not. By challenging him to back his very clear pronouncement, not by arguing, but simply putting up some cash, the debate ended. That should tell you all you need to know about how sincere he is. If you are truly confused about mschere and would like me to explain why I think his posts should be regarded with a large dose of salt, I'll be happy to communicate with you off list. The purpose is not to fight with him, but to try to suggest to those that believe his posts to be careful if they are actually changing their actions based on what he posts.
If you believe mschere is wonderful and/or that I'm a (pick your insult), please share it with me in a PM. It's okay, you may very well be right, but it's not relevant to IDCC. I don't want this discussion to clutter the board.
Thanks,
Frank
Mschere, do you really believe your own BS?
Wm. Merritt stated that Infineon is the likely supplier for an Apple 3G baseband. ..In any event IDCC will collect $2 per Apple 3G sale at a minimum.
The obvious inference and intent of that statement was to give the impression that the entire thought was from Mr. Merritt. When asked where you heard it, you did not clarify that these were a quote and YOUR opinion as one would do if they wanted to be clearly understood.
So you believe that IDCC will collect $2 related to each Apple 3G sale? While I hope and wish it comes to pass, I don't see it happening. So if you really believe that, let's both send $10,000 to JimLur. At the end of 2009 we'll look at Apple sales and the revenue flow to IDCC from them. If it is $2 or more, congrats. I'll actually be thrilled to lose because it means that IDCC will be kicking ass and my portfolio will be at a multiple of today's value.
So if you believe, put up. If not, don't be so indignant when someone points out your irrational exuburance.
Frank
For those who support mschere, please let him respond for himself. I'm sure you'll agree that he is more than able to handle himself. And no need for anyone to voice their support for me on the board. Anyone who needs to respond please send a PM.
20MM post contest
Where can I see the results?
No more free passes for jjff
No more free passes for Mr Merritt, he has been on the job long enough now to know how the games played.With so many variables out there what was accomplished by giving earnings guidance other than to create a better repurchase program (Iknow it will benefit us down the road) His comment about the Samsung case " ANY DAY NOW " how many days has it been. Out of his control yes, but understand when he speaks people listen and act accordingly mainly fund managers!MAKE NO PROMISES YOU CAN'T KEEP!
POST NO CONDEMNATIONS THAT AREN'T TRUE!
Mr. Merritt made no promises he hasn't kept. He indicated the company would give guidance and it did. What it accomplished was putting information out in a timely manner. When you go to the doctor do you only expect him to give you the test results that are good and let the bad news come out later? Doesn't sound like a smart plan to me. I'm glad you realize that the silver lining is that the company is picking up cheap shares for the shareholders. His comments about Samsung were his expectation based on his knowledge at the time. I've never heard him promise anything.
I don't want a company that gives the bare minimum of information. I want early information and can accept that future results will differ from what was projected. Mr. Merritt has been consistently over optimistic is his assessments. Part of the reason is that in his position he needs to establish positive realistic expectations. Another part is that I believe he has been truly surprised by the difficulties in getting contracts finalized. So yes, he's been wrong, but I don't think he's lied about his expectations so I am not going to bash him for sharing his thoughts. However it is time for him to produce results. I'm very glad that we have the ITC actions going and would love to see infringement cases around the globe to put some pressure on MENS. It's been too long since LG. That contractual precedent is what fuels my belief that IDCC will be able to license others at reasonable rates that will provide revenues that will generate a much higher share price.
I think IDCC is a no brainer buy at these levels. I understand that December may be rough, with year end tax selling and portfolio managers dumping their losers for window dressing, but that should give the company a great supply of stock to buy. When IDCC signs the big guys these prices will look insane, even if they aren't the bottom. The downside risk is very limited from here IMO, so I'd much rather buy in a buck too soon than have it run away from me. This is only my opinion and I would not recommned anyone trade based on it (other than my mom, who loves me no matter what).
WAG 12/03/07 at 12:12 pm
Great post Desert dweller
Obviously if you look at that answer today, it was a terrible idea. But if you take the traditional long view on investing which is what a buyback is for, let's ask that question 2-4 years from today. Bookmark your question then on 1/1/10, let's see if it was a good idea. Also when I say take the traditional long view on investing, I mean a measurement period in years not days like some of today's traders look at it.
I guess given the choices of buy back, investing in other companies or sitting on the cash, at these prices and when it was in the 30's and the feeling of our prospects at the time, my choice is buy backs.
If you throw in the option of a dividend, then I would have chosen a dividend when the stock was in the 30's. In the 30's a dividend would have been a better use of cash since they were buying at the multi year highs. Paying a dividend of $.10/qtr would have conserved cash which would have allowed more options and at these levels they could have instituted a very large buy back. At today's prices I much rather see a buy back because my feeling is we are way undervalued long term.
Management obviously thought we were undervalued in the 30's and probably expected Sammy to be resolved by now which would have kept us easily in the 30's and probably higher. Had that happened the buy back in the 30's would have looked smart.
gman, that's just scary
imo, never mistake % gains as being better than dollars gained
If there is anyone who doesn't see the absurdity of that comment and would like to better understand how to measure the success/profitability of an investment, please let me know and I will be happy to discuss it offline.
If you feel the need to argue the point, please don't. Go to anyone you know who has any financial savvy and discuss it with them. They will set you straight.
RIMM and AAPL are minor contracts
unless or until they start generating significant revenues. Since IDCC has not deemed it necessary to enlighten the investing public on the specific of these deals that they are so happy with, the investing public is not adding much to the valuation for these contracts. That makes perfect sense. While there is a sexy sizzle related to these companies, just doing business with them does not make you a hot item unless you can show that your income is related to their success. If IDCC is not talking about the contracts, it would be irrationally exuberent to expect that they will have a material impact on the financials. It is absolutely possible that they will, and I hope it's true, but don't expect those without a rooting interest and a penchant for donning the rose colored glasses when looking at IDCC to give much value to these mystery contracts. The bad news is that I don't think they've helped the stock price much at all, but the good news is that if they do turn out to be significant, it sure as hell isn't priced in.
Frank
JAGfn rumor indicates to me pump and dump
I'm not real big on conspiracies, short attacks and the like, but in watching this stock over time I've found these JAGfn buyout rumors to be an indicator of someone looking to create demand for shares they want to sell. I'd be cautious about a short term buy based on that rumor. Long term I think these levels are a great entry point, but waiting a week may save you a point or two.
Just my unscientific and amateur opinion.
Lawyers don't get discouraged
Please keep providing the valuable information from your education and experience. Some will ask questions because the law is not always logical, so your responses will clarify and help them understand. Others will argue and oppose you, even though they are completely ignorant, and refuse to accept your answer. Be assured that the vast majority lurking out here know who's opinions are based on a solid foundation and who's aren't. Don't focus on the ingnorant few posters - ignore them. If they don't want to accept your expertise it's their loss. Please don't make it everyone else's loss too.
Thanks,
Frank
Obviously they were talking Apples and Oranges.
Loop, thanks for your contribution
Clear, concise, on point and helpful to those who read it. That's what Jim's board is all about. I appreciate it.
Jim,
Sorry for my latest post. I saw this after I posted. Please delete it and this. It serves no useful purpose.
Thanks,
Frank
Olddog, you are a gem
Thank you very much for sharing the fruits of your hard work with the folks here in Jim's cyber club. I view the posts 100 at a time and scan through them. Whenever I see an olddog937 post I make sure to read every word. I know I will get good information and links when appropriate. If there are any opinions they will be well thought out and unbiased. You are a great asset here. I appreciate your unselfish sharing.
Thanks,
Frank
Is management doing their job?
I believe they are working at it. Success has been slow, slower than most investors and management expected. Yes, they do need to get the infringers signed and I'm glad they are taking action through the ITC.
Management has given their future expectations and they've proven to be overly optimistic the past couple of years. Being mistaken does not mean they failed. However the 3G clock is ticking and they do need to really bring all resources to the fore to get these licenses signed before we get into the same situation we had with 2G, which is the sales have been made and going back to collect past due amounts requires a major discount. IDCC needs to execute in the next 12 months.
IDCC management shouldn't worry about "bear raids"
Managements job is to make the company as successful as possible and provide clear and accurate guidance regarding current results and future expectations. INVESTORS (me and you) decide when to buy and when to sell our stock. Management builds value by creating earnings. Not only is it not management's job to try and manipulate the stock price, it is against the law. It is also silly to expect management to buy stock to support the price. They are hired to run the company, not to buy the stock. And of course, they are never allowed to sell it, are they... he who rides the tiger can never dismount.
I do believe that value and price converge over time. "Bear raids" and any other manipulation can affect short term price, but for the long term investor it creates buying opportunities. This is one of them.
I am not happy with the price collapse. I've looked at what's going on with the company and see nothing that changes my long term very positive expectations for IDCC. So I am comfortable with my investment and am sleeping fine. If you can't live with volatility you should invest in more stable investments and diversify. You make your own decisions, live with the results. Management needs to do the job they were hired to do.
Techies input vs dot connectors
Techies and legal eagles are the ones that help me manage my investment. They can give me insight into the need for IDCC IP and their ability to monetize it. I am no expert on institutions, but I do believe that if IDCC signs additional contracts and expands revenue, institutions and others will bid the price up. If IDCC does not execute, demand and price will languish. Institutions are not stupid, but they also are not omniscient. They look at the same things individuals do, revenue, earnings, potential for future growth, growth rates, risks and possible reward. They do have massive resources and great experience, but they also follow thousands of stocks, which means they don't put all their energy into every stock they follow.
I would much rather know what contracts will be signed over the next 6 months than which way the institutions are leaning. Institutional desires will move the stock short term, but as a long term investor I don't worry about the price moves not caused by news. IDCCs price had an expectation of news built in. Current revenues do not support the current price. However I am still optimistic that additional contracts will be signed and the fundamentals will support a multiple of the current price. I believe price and value converge over time, so if the institutions are bearish on the stock when fundamentals and future earnings are bright, I will hold or buy more. Institutions pretty much ignored the stock in the single digits and teens. The stepped in in the 20s and bought big time in the 30s.
My exit strategy is to sell when Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch both have buys on IDCC. That will indicate that all the buyers are in and it will be time for me to get out. Here's a strategy, buy stocks ignored by institutions that have good prospects for posting solid financial success, then sell when the institutions all are covering it. I realize the first part of that strategy is very tough to do, but I think it would be far easier than reading tea leaves to figure out what institutions next move will be and then trying to trade with them.
gman - Owning IDCC is betting on the come.
vg_future, you new to IDCC??
...fight dragging on forever is out of question
How long is forever? Check with Loop on that.
I've seen no evidence that the infringers are looking to license on FRAND terms. Their strategy is delay, delay, delay. The choice they see is
Pay now
OR
Maybe pay later, probably pay less later (given a discount on past infringement - see ERICY or NOK) or if they get real lucky, pay nothing ever (see MOT).
I don't believe management is stupid, so I'm keeping the faith that they have good reason to believe they can get the contracts signed in a reasonable time frame, which is why we aren't suing everyone right now. I'm hoping they are not being strung along by unethical folks taking advantage of IDCCs willingness to play nice. I hope this modification is clearing the way for a deal with one of the majors that will hopefully break this year and a half logjam on the licensing front and give us the watershed event that we thought we had with ERICY and then with LG. But to say this "dragging on for years is out of the question" is a bit optimistic based on the history and my perception of the manufacturers business style.
Frank
my3sons87, you need to change your screen name
to Rip Van Winkle if we comply with your request! (I hope this is a joke... but ... [yawning] ... we'll ... zzzzzzzzz)
As for me, I am going to take a nap, wake me when something happens.
8-K out (nothing new): Stays of court action
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/070615/idcc8-k.html
Form 8-K for INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15-Jun-2007
Other Events
Item 8.01. Other Events.
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware ("District Court") has entered two Stipulated Orders staying proceedings, in a first matter of InterDigital Communications Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, InterDigital Technology Corporation, (together, "InterDigital") against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Samsung Electronics"), and in a second matter of Samsung Telecommunications America LLP and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "Samsung Telecommunications") against InterDigital and certain InterDigital affiliates. Both Stipulated Orders were agreed to by the parties.
One of the Stipulated Orders stays InterDigital's District Court proceeding against Samsung Electronics until the United States International Trade Commission's ("ITC") determination becomes final. Specifically, InterDigital's District Court proceeding against Samsung Electronics parallels an investigation by the ITC against Samsung Electronics based upon a complaint by InterDigital alleging that Samsung Electronics has engaged in unfair trade practices by importing for sale certain 3G handsets and components that infringe four of InterDigital's patents.
The other Stipulated Order stays Samsung Telecommunications' District Court proceeding against InterDigital until September 14, 2007. In addition, although the parties are not limited in pursuing any legal actions with regard to any existing legal proceedings between them or their affiliates, it was agreed by the parties that any new proceeding brought by InterDigital or Samsung Telecommunications against the other party on or before September 14, 2007 would automatically terminate the stay in the Samsung Telecommunications' District Court proceeding against InterDigital.
Whoooooa is right!
I happened to be up early this morning and Yahoo was showing IDCC at 25, but unchanged. I immediately checked out IHUB and saw no posts regarding anything bad and felt some relief. I opened up my brokerage account and got a quote and saw Yahoo was off. After picking my stomach up off the floor (no easy task), I went about my business. A little bit later I checked out the price on Yahoo as is my habit and it said IDCC up 7 points!! WooHooo!!! Then I noticed the quote was 32.75. Ah, up 7 from the erroneous prior day close. I put the now nicely aged Champagne that I keep by my desk back in the ice waiting for the real watershed event that will make the chart look like the proverbial hockey stick. A virtual rollercoaster ride while riding a small incline.
The morning's excitement made me appreciate the relative stability in IDCCs stock price over the past 6-8 months. Trading between 30-36 and not bouncing around on insignificant events. While the maniac depressive stock swings of the past created trading opportunities, it is much less stressful for those of us with a significant chunk of our portfolios in our little gem. I look forward to the day that we sign the next major and the 7 point jump is just the start of the run.
Thank you G hors, great work. eom
You are correct, Sherlock. PM.
Thanks,
Frank
;oD
May 21, 5:22 Eastern time (my 24th anniversery to the minute).
Thanks olddog,
However my question was not about reverse engineering for the ITC. It just seems to this layman that it would be SOP to reverse engineer any significant potential licensee's products to determine the extent of their use of the IPR so that we know what they are using and so that we can show them what they are using when we start discussing licensing.
My question was more to those in the know about if that is the case. If it is, then adding a defendant would not be such a burdensome task.
Frank
Reverse engineering
I hope that IDCC has reverse engineered all the big 5 products (at a minimum) so they can state with specificity how their devices intersect IDCC's IPR when they have licensing discussions. While I'm sure it's not easy, the cost of getting doing the reverse engineering would be insignificant in relation to the potential revenues.
I'd love to hear from industry savvy folks (such as Eric or DataRox) to learn about what is done in preparation for negotiations.
Frank
Moses parted the Red Sea, of course!!
Moses????????
"Moses will have returned and sailed the ARC again." What did Noah do?????
OT: Our legal system grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Ghors, I truly respect your contributions to this forum and your legal insights, but please go easy on defending the legal system. You are obviously an experienced advocate, demonstrated by the way you twisted the complaint about the extraordinary time taken to settle this into a classic strawman argument.
It is only flawed from the standpoint of us wanting a quick verdict in our favor without regard to a defendant's right to present their side of the case. How dare they defend themselves?
We don't want a "quick" verdict, just a timely one. Quick would be six months. Is there any time frame a lawyer would consider too long?
Who said it had to be in our favor? Of course that is what we want, but the complaint is about getting action in a timely manner.
No one said the defendant should not be able to defend themselves. The complaint is about the interminable delay in them defending themselves for no purpose other than delay. What can they do to defend themselves in 2009 that they couldn't have done in 2006? Sheesh, give me a break.
Sorry for the OT, but the knee jerk defense of anyone questioning the efficacy of the lawyer enriching legal system through rhetorical devices that bury the real issues is a pet peeve of mine.
Ghors, this is nothing against you personally. I've developed respect for your legal knowledge and your ability to analyze the issues for the layman out here. You are a great asset to this board. I just happen to disagree about the need for the number of billable hours and calendar days that must be endured before a fair decision can be rendered.
That paragraph had me laughing
QUALCOMM is concerned that Nokia continues to attempt to mislead the industry and
the investment community. Nokia's statement today that "it has paid less than 3
per cent aggregate license fees on WCDMA handset sales under all its patent
license agreements" and that such "WCDMA handset related royalty payments made by
Nokia include all WCDMA handset royalty payments made to Qualcomm", if true,
would mean that Nokia has seriously underpaid royalties owed to QUALCOMM under
the parties' 2001 license agreement and is in material breach of the agreement.
QUALCOMM will address this potential breach through legal and contractual
channels.
Go Qualcomm - I love it.
I think they are making a great case for the value of IP and that IP owners are entitled to be fairly compensated - even if they are despicable tax collecting trolls. The legal battle has not really started, but IMO they are kicking ass in the court of public opinion. They really put things in a way that highlights the gapping holes in Nokia's position.
Alright Qualcomm - sue the bastards!
IDCCs lawyers can take a front row seat and see what works and what doesn't, then use that info to help craft their strategy. While the situations are obviously different, there are a lot of similarities. Gives us a chance to scout the other team and game plan to attack their weaknesses.
Management can use the information to gain some leverage to help in the negotiations or to decide to follow in QCOMs footsteps and get case(s) of their own on rocket dockets.
Amusing article, thanks for posting
I do think that there is a lot of truth in the article. Sounds very much like what a CEO tells me, but in a much less direct way. I truly hope the institutions continue to push for more independence and accountability in corporate America.
Disclaimer (to hopefully ward off food fight).
I think this is common to the vast majority of public companies, including Qualcomm, Nokia, Motorola and any other company L&L IDCC fans might not like. I do think IDCC is part of that majority as well, which is why the article is relevant to me and why I responded here.
Not worried about losing my shirt
Sometimes it's best to leave before the show is over. Otherwise you stand the chance of leaving without the shirt on your back.
The stock has definitely lost its momentum and looks to be in a reversal. How low it's going to go is the question. There just does seem to be any imminent catalyst to turn this thing around any time soon imo.
I agree, there is no catalyst on the horizon. If we did not have the LG agreeement in our back pocket I would probably be out of IDCC right now because if they do not monetize their 3G patents then there is little value. If there were no major players signed then there would be big risk. But IDCC does have LG, and that says to me that IDCC patents do have value. While the pace of licensing is glacial, I feel very confident in IDCCs patents have value and they will get paid. It is taking longer than I'd expected and it may be less than I hope, but it is hard for me to imagine IDCC not making at least $2.00 a share, which would support prices at or above these levels. It's not hard for me to imagine IDCC having EPS of $5.00 a share or more.
This is not to say that the price won't fall from here - it very well might, especially if the market is weak. I'm just saying I still feel very confident that long term these shares are cheap and that I don't see a big downside risk longterm.
Loop, don't you leave before the show is over.
Performance
Our CEO has been making Namath comments and getting Shottenheimer results for quite some time now. His time is running out on the Street. We need some performance very soon. It is apparent that some of his audience is leaving before his show is over.
MO
loop
Yes, this is taking way longer than any of us expected. ERICY was a watershed. Nope. LG will open the floodgates for 3G. Not yet. Management expectations for new licenses have proved to be optimistic. Nokia and the MENS club is digging in their heels and doing all they can to squeeze IP rates as low as possible. That's the bad news and is what is causing frustration in shareholders.
However...
Look at the charts posted by Badgerkid. That ain't bad for a stock that is just started to reach it's potential. Yes, we're waiting a long time but we aren't suffering financially. No one could call us dead money over any of those time frames.
Nokia's suit is focused on FRAND, not non-infringement or non-essential IP. I see that as a big positive. Seems like they know they have to pay, the question is how much.
We have the LG license. It provides the company with more cash than is needed to run the company, so no cash flow worries. It also gives us a good rate to use as a benchmark. Lawyers can bring all sorts of valuation experts to spin IDCCs patents to be worth anywhere from next to nothing to priceless. However, the best indicator of value is what a buyer pays. LG is a major manufacturer, not under any under pressure to license, so it will be very difficult for anyone to justify a rate that varies greatly from what LG is paying.
While the MENS club is banding together to fight paying royalties, we now have QCOM fighting back on our side. They've been successful in the past. They aren't just fighting the little guys - we have a bully on our side too.
So buck up, Loop. The Giants will be playing soon. Maybe 2007 will be the year for IDCC and the Giants.
Frank
Q1 recurring revenue is really Q4 2006
Lest anyone be confused, the royalty obligations that ended December 31, 2006 will be included in our Q1 2007 income based on IDCC's reporting royalties one quarter in arrears. Q2 of 2007 is when the affect of the expired contracts will hit the financial statements.
Frank