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.
Last time, Mickey. 4G may use in excess of a 10 MHz channel, but IT DOES NOT USE CDMA NOR WCDMA!!!!!!! The 1994 patents are for CDMA/WCDMA, not OFDMA. Can't you understand this simple truth? If not, perhaps you should invest in a hamburger chain, or Clorox.
It's a moot question. There are no CDMA nor WCDMA infrastructures anywhere in the world that use a 10 MHz carrier. CDMA carriers are approx 1.25 MHz, and WCDMA carriers are approx 5 MHz. End of story. That's why only you are talking about this, and neither IDCC nor Qualcomm is. No reason to revisit ancient history, from 1994.
Mickey, either you don't read, or you lack the capacity to comprehend. The point of my post to you is confirmed by this link that you attached. No point in discussing this further with you.But if you somehow think that IDCC outsmarted Qualcomm with the 10MHz condition in the 1994 settlement agreement, you simply don't understand. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.Apparently IDCC doesn't understand their agreement and CDMA as well as you, because they have never sued Qualcomm during the past 15 years, and haven't even raised that possibility during any CC's, presentations, or annual meetings. Maybe you should call their patent counsel and implore him to sue Qualcomm over the 10MHz limitation for those 5 ancient CDMA patents.Be sure to learn the differences between CDMA and OFDMA before you do.
Mickey, apparently you didn't read Data's detailed and correct post concerning this red herring. WiMAX and LTE are OFDMA, not CDMA, technologies. Therefore, those few old CDMA patents that were involved in the 1994 settlement have nothing to do with OFDMA.Forget about it, if you are unaware of the distinction.Nobody is proposing spreading CDMA in 10MHz channels, and Qualcomm understood it would not be feasible.
Jim, would you like to pay more taxes, so that more judges and support staff can be hired, and facilities enlarged, to accommodate your plan? How much longer would justice be delayed, if three judges were assigned to every case in litigation? Judges come with their own personalities and experiences, which shape their interpretations of laws, rules, and evidence. Would having three views of jaded judges improve the quality of justice? Federal judges are appointed, and approved by the U.S. Senate, while state judges are appointed in some jurisdictions, elected in others. Either way, judges are politicians or politically connected. It's quality, not quantity, that should be emphasized.
The old joke among lawyers is, "What do you call a lawyer who can't make a living? Your Honor."
Sorry, Mickey. I don't short stocks. I'm a a one way long investor, who is not impressed by talk of $250, when the stock's stagnant in the mid to upper 20's. Without meaningful licenses and extensions for 3G, and 4G, we're going to suffer with a compressed P/E. Not only have we failed to license half of 3G, we are having even bigger problems with licensing 4G.
Mickey, we only have Dunner because we lost the trial, and couldn't prove infringement. More times than not, appeals are unsuccessful. That makes us the underdog, and unquestionably results in lost time, money, and attorney fees. Call all the silly, wrongheaded names you want. But it won't change the facts.
Mickey, take off the blinders. It is IDCC's burden to prove patent infringement, and we weren't able to preponderate before the ALJ, nor could we convince the Commission that the ALJ was wrong. I mistakenly thought we'd win that trial, but having failed to do so, we surrendered the catbird seat to Nokia. Instead of cashing their checks, we're writing checks to the lawyers.
Maybe you didn't get the memo. Nokia won the ITC action, and now IDCC has the burden of winning the appeal, and if they do, there will be another ITC trial and appeal. If they don't, why would Nokia even return to the table? Protracted litigation, loss of leverage, and wasted time. Not a prescription for good licensing terms . And that's for 3G. 4G is being built, licenses have been signed, and again IDCC can't close any deals. (Pantech hardly counts). While IDCC is litigating, business is being done by others. Sad.
Mickey, if you really think that IDCC will readily license 4G, for more than 3G, you're going to be very disappointed. 4G patent rates will decline from 3G, and the total industry royalties for 4G tech will be lower than 3G, as well. I bought IDCC because they were supposed to be so strong in 3G. Just look at the difficulty they're having signing up the 3G boys, and the implied rates they're settling for. 4G will be far tougher. That's what the compressed multiple is telling you. At $26, you're still fixated on $250? As the Everly Brothers said, "Dream, Dream Dream Dream."
No.
We get paid for all HTC Android phones, but no Motorola Android phones.
Jim, IDCC had sued Qualcomm over those patents, which discouraged Qualcomm's early potential customers from agreeing to install CDMA, over TDMA/GSM.Qualcomm countersued, and alleged theft of IPR, among other things. In order to remove the litigation cloud, and facilitate the commercialization of mobile cellular CDMA, Qualcomm in 1994 paid approx. $5.5 mil to IDCC, gave IDCC access to one patent, and received permanent rights to several IDCC patents.The uncertainty was lifted, and that was the last time the two companies were in litigation against each other.
Qualcomm's Snapdragon processors, Mirasol displays, and FLO TV are the only reasons they were the talk of CES. Not because of their IPR or engineering prowess.
CES is about products. InterDigital's products are its IPR and some engineering services/software stacks. Not the focus of CES.
Nessco, Qualcomm also gets a royalty on the phone, per its license with HTC. Whose royalty percentage do you think is higher?
Mickey, don't kid yourself about a Google license, unless they enter the hardware business. They neither make nor sell Android phones, the same being made by HTC, Motorola, and others. It's the list of Android manufacturers and sellers that IDCC needs to license.
Don't get hung up on patent counting.By now, we should all know that the number of patents applicable or claimed to be essential to a standard does not determine the commercial importance nor value of a company's portfolio.
LG potentially out of business, or bought by Pantech? You've got that one turned around. Pantech is the one with financial problems, and low market share. That's why they had to give equity positions to Qualcomm and InterDigital just to get licensed. LG is huge and growing stronger, while Pantech is perennially on the ropes.
Not to burst your bubble, but that 65% is for 4G - LTE/WiMAX/ WiBro. They get royalties from nearly 100% of 3G.
The Motorola order is for cheap GSM/GPRS chips for the China market. It has nothing to do with 3G of any nature, and is not revenue generating to IDCC. Fact.
The Motorols SPRD business is purely cheap GSM/GPRS. It involves no 3G, and is non-revenue bearing to IDCC.
Test
Merritt was asked for comment because he has recently both litigated and (thus far) lost a contentious patent case with Nokia, and has successfully negotiated a patent license with Apple. What other company would be in a better position to add color to the Nokia v Apple story?
Sinead Carew contributed from New York, and another contributed from San Francisco.
Whizzer, "highly unlikely" is an overstatement. For example, a Santa Ana Federal judge granted Broadcom precisely such an Injunction against a wide array of Qualcomm chipsets, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused to grant a Stay, all after that new Supreme Court test.Four patents had been found to be infringed.
So Foxconn may make some Nokia CDMA products, but perhaps not GSM/UMTS/HSDPA/WiFi, which are at issue in the Nokia v Apple action.
Is Foxconn an ODM for any Nokia products? If so, for which?
Re: you being sure that Nokia has a license with Foxconn
Do you have factual proof that Nokia and Foxconn have a license?
If they do, it apparently does not extend to the iPhone, or Nokia could not have filed this suit. Because Infineon and Nokia likely have a cross-license, as Infineon is a baseband supplier to Nokia, the lawsuit against Apple is directed to the subscriber equipment level, not the chipset vendor. As such, Infineon/IDCC are irrelevant to the analysis.
Twisting the facts? My agenda? Unfortunately, my agenda in owning IDCC is to make money. That's hard to do when the company cherry picks patents that are presumably among its strongest, litigates, and loses. Voila! Down nearly 20% in a day. Now tell me that we'll win the appeal, just like the Commission reversed - not.
Mickey, there's a huge difference. QCOM went to the ITC with only meaningless GSM patents (they charge no royalties for GSM). They never had to put the family jewels - 3G IPR - in controversy. IDCC bet the farm, and thus far has lost.
There is no evidence that HTC will ever stop using Qualcomm as its dominant 3G silicon provider. All handset suppliers fear having only one source for silicon, and dual or multiple supplier arrangements are common (e.g., Samsung, LG,Motorola, Nokia).BRCM is being evaluated as a potential additional source, as may well be others. They may or may not ever get substantial business from HTC.But BRCM will never replace QCOM IMHO. QCOM's catalog is too deep, they are part owners of HTC, and have too close a relationship.
Fortunately for all of us shareholders, Mickey, the decisions of IDCC will not be based upon jingoistic message board bravado. Nobody doubts IDCC holds many valid and enforceable patents, some of which are essential to the 3G and 4G standards. It is the commercial value of those patents that is in dispute, and which forms the basis of sophisticated bilateral negotiations. If there's something to be thankful for, it is that management knows the realities of what their portfolio can yield, and will be guided by their fiduciary obligations of business prudence.All the uninformed chest pumping notwithstanding, deals will eventually be made, and the market will define their value.
"They" said there would/could be no disclosure to Mickey updating the status of confidential negotiations, not that Mickey wouldn't get an informationless, glad handing reply.
Not trying to shut anyone up, know about ignore, and thanks for sharing.
Mickey, do you think that by addressing a post "To All", it takes on more importance than your other many posts? Aren't all of your public posts intended for all who care to read them?
As for your letter to Janet, did you truly expect her to disclose to you anything about the confidential negotiations IDCC may be having with other parties? How could she, and why would she, respond? And, this last point is not intended as insult, but rather reflects a visceral reaction. Despite your prolific and passionate ramblings, writing does not reflect your strength.If you could construct a cogent thought, concisely stated, with good grammar and spelling, you might receive a reply from Janet.
Judges make decisions. You may not like his, but he made one.He passed nothing to the Commission.
You can choose to rationalize anything - even why Nokia was so willing to take this case to ID by the ALJ.They had the benefit of seeing all aspects of the evidence, both "confidential" and "public", and the best advice available from their entire team. And their assessment, so far, has been correct.IDCC stock is down a third since the ID ruling. That alone should be sobering.
Mickey, litigation is risky. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not infringement has occurred. In every patent case prosecuted to completion, either the sophisticated plaintiff, or the sophisticated defendant, loses. All have the best advice from their engineers, retained experts, and attorneys. You would like it to be black and white, when in fact it is various shades of gray.That's why signing licensees after arms' length negotiations is far preferable to serial litigation.And that's why IDCC's multiple is so compressed.
ALJ "over his head"? You're kidding yourself. He has tried patent cases all year long,for many years, all of which disputes are complex.
I was talking about the trial. That is when Rebuttal takes place.