IMO- Price drop is sure sign we are on cusp of good news-come on Willy, hit em when they least expect it. Only thing missing to make this a "lock" is the amsag indicator.

Question: Is there any way to find out what percentage of the total amount of short positions is attributed to hedge funds and if not, any educated guesses? tia.

IMO-The wireless industry is in the beginning phase of a spectacular boom where cosolidation and convergence will bring new entities to the world stage. With Bill Merritt setting some revenue parameters for Wall Street to contemplate, I have to believe that IDCC's patent portfolio and expertise are on plenty of radar screens of those current 3g players and also some major new entrants to the "multi-media computer" market. The possibility of partnerships or buyout will certainly fuel the stock price in the near future, as the projected conservative revenues of 2010 would propel our stock 5 times higher than today's value. With several more licenses coming on board, hopefully this year, I would not be surprised at joint ventures being announced in 2007 or buyout talk heating up. Good luck to all longs-we are at the right place, at the right time, with the right company.

Let's say a major 3g deal is announced within the next 2 weeks and insiders had waited till after the runup to sell, how would the market have reacted at that point and would it signal that no more deals were imminent? The fact that they all sold at the same time, tells me that this was agreed upon as a group to sell x days after the asm or at a pre determined date, not as a reaction to any deals that may or may not be pending. I may be wrong, but I really doubt that management would be that stupid to pull a stunt like this if they were privy to some negative news.The new team has worked too hard to turn things around and to align its interests with the shareholders to ruin a great run and all the positive karma we have recently gained. If anything, I would bet that good news is coming soon and in hindsight selling now will be looked at as a positive, rather than disrupting the momentum that can be gained by announcing several licenses.JMHO

What a great opportunity for "the new regime" under Bill Merritt to dispell another myth, that every time an insider sells it is because either bad news is coming or no good news is on the horizon. An announcement of a major deal would forever put an end to this non sensical herd mentality reasoning and continue to make this stock more difficult to manipulate. Here's hoping that we can make insider sales non events like they should be, and Wall Street can be put on notice not to read anything more than human beings selling for personal reasons.

I don't know a thing about technical analysis, other than it is essentially a back fit system that looks for patterns from the past to predict what might happen in the future. The problem I have is, that it has become a self fulfilling prophecy, when market pundits like Bob Pisani on CNBC,comment that the market has to do this or that before it can move forward. This type of thinking works in a closed, fixed system as long as there is a herd mentality-which we evidently have. However, I believe that going against the herd, and viewing this as an open and variable system will provide an individual a great opportunity for wealth. The timing couldn't be better for a stock like IDCC to break the mold, or as "The Fools" say become a "Rule Breaker". The fundamentals are in place for IDCC to become a must stock to own in a must industry.

WOW! IDCC just went out over am airwaves sports news network syndicated show as stock that will go thru the roof by end of year. My son and brother just heard it and just about fell off their chairs! Don't know who mentioned it or why it was mentioned on a sports show, but plenty of listeners now know our name.

Regarding our value to qcom and others: I think that one important point is being missed and that is buying out IDCC may become a defensive move to prevent a major NEW player from entering the market. Nokia forbids its employees from calling their product "phones", instead they are referred to as "multi-media computers" and this concept is what is sure to bring companies such as Dell etc. into this market. A company with a strong portfolio of 3g patents and licenses in place to trade, will surely be an acquisition target for the convergent technology that will follow. My feeling is, not IF IDCC wil be purchased, but when, by whom, and for what price? We are at the right place, at the right time, and with a company that is about to become the GEM of the industry. So qcom and others, how much future competition do you want for your multi-media players? A small R&D firm from KOP must sure look good to some mighty big players sitting on the sidelines for now. So who is going to play DEFENSE? JMHO

I would think that today would be a good time to announce guidance for 2nd qtr and make IDCC a stock you want to own before the long weekend begins-maybe just after lunch to help us close strong.

Hey Wall Street-Please help me! I am looking to invest in a company with the following parameters:(1)Must produce world wide revenues(2)Be in an industry that is exploding and with the following characteristics-product is deemed necessary to everyday life, could be classified as addictive in some cases, continues to be replaced at reasonable intervals.(3)The company must have little or no debt and plenty of cash on hand.(4)Outstanding shares in the company must be low and company plans for buy backs should be in place.(5)Must have at least 65% of the market still available to produce revenues on top of a growing revenue base.(6)Margins must be high, with most future revenues falling to the bottom line(7)Management must have a clear vision to grow shareholder value and the resolute to follow thru.(8)Company may be very attractive to suitors in a consolidation phase of the industry(9)Must not have high visibility on the street-yet.(10)Basically, I'm looking for a company that had a patent on nicotene,post world war II. TIA!

Question: Since there seems to be a consensus view worldwide amongst the oems that qcom does not deserve the same royalty rates for 3g that it was able to demand for 2g, could there be a major shift in strategy that could greatly benefit IDCC? Rather than negotiate first with qcom, why not use IDCC as a company that licenses on fair and reasonable terms and use our rate as a bellweather when pushing qcom to reduce royalty demands.If qcom doesn't like it, then maybe they need to buy out IDCC to offer a portfolio that deserves the rates they want.

In assessing the first 4 months of 06, I am very impressed with not only management's ability to get the job done, but also the unpredictabilty of when these major deals were finalized and announced. Timing this stock just became a lot more difficult and with so much out there that could come at any time, a clear message was sent to those that have manipulated this stock in the past. I also like the fact that WM is confident enough to throw out figures like 700 million in revenues that is "not a pipe dream" because it clearly states our potential while the Company continues to buy back its own stock. IF we are to see someone who is interested in adding our portfolio to plug the holes in theirs or feels that they need what we have in order to deal with China, I would expect that this interest would show up fairly soon(sometime between now and next April). This very real possibility also looms over those that feel they can time this stock as they have in the past. Great position to be in for LONGS. jmho

With Wall Street supposedly looking 6 months ahead when judging a stock, it's hard to believe that tomorrow's earnings will be anything more than pointing the direction of revenues and expenses, since we are really seeing numbers generated from Oct-Dec 05. Maybe the Street needs to look out 9 months when judging IDCC's future earnings.Bottom line, with shrinking number of shares outstanding, increasing revenues and probably decreasing expenses in 06, in the most explosive industry of the decade, I believe that we are at the right place at the right time. Who here doesn't think we can earn $200 million in the near future?

Cramer's show and advice is eerily similar to the old sport's service touts that would rant and rave about their ability to pick winners on the weekend's games. The only thing more pathetic than the touts were the people that called in and paid for the picks. If you want to know how much thought goes into the advice, rent Two for the Money at your local video store and get a good laugh.

Cramer's effect long term on anything-0-zero-nada!

Data Rox-I think you are missing the key component to the settlement and that is that the trigger was a huge detriment to not only getting 3g rates from nok but from the other companies that were named as triggers. Just an opinion, but I think it is pretty clear who the indemnifier was and that game could have been played out endlessly-even IF a trigger was ever established, arb would have lasted at least 3 years-now each company is on its own and doesn't draw the ire of nok for having triggered and nok saves face by negotiating their own rates. Just my opinion and we will have to see how it plays out, but I feel that we just gained a tremendous amount of flexibility to structure our 3g rates and enforce them.

For whatever it's worth, I think that the shackles of a triggered contract along with the wink/wink indemnification agreement with the named triggers, have now come off and it's this environment that will facilitate 3g licenses with eric and lu as well as pave the way for nok to cut a deal for itself. Removing those restrictions is lost on wall street, but you could tell in UB's voice that he felt this was a tremendous benefit to the entire deal without specifically mentioning those aspects. With more 3g deals coming and the possibility of more shares being purchased, this stock should hold up very well. I like the fact that this settlement came out of left field and more surprises could be in store for our short friends. Hope we have some good news next thursday and projections of continued prosperity. Good job management!

If sammy gets essentially the same deal what did we think they owed us pre arb? tia

Good Bye TRIGGERED CONTRACTS and the Goldberg era is finally thru. Issue is now moot whether Sam has a 3g contract-just pay up and start negotiating 3g on your own. Great day IDCC-thank you UB.

Am I correct in assuming that on 01/01/07 we are no longer under the burden of a triggered rate contract and thus the indemnification arrangement between nok and the other 65% group should also be a thing of the past? Looks like 07 is shaping up to be the defining year for 3g with Q and IDCC on one side and nok leading the charge for the oem's. Unless some agreement can be made amongst all parties, it's hard to imagine any event short of lengthy litigation, that will allow us to collect from nok and others. If a frivolous action, like the one in Delaware, takes several years to be decided, you can imagine what infringement, appeals etc. would take. So it comes down to, can we trigger nok before 12/31/06 and do we really want this(with arb lasting 3 years or more) or have we resigned ourselves to the fact that the named triggers are hiding behind indemnification and won't budge, opening up 2007 as every man for himself. Maybe the trigger contract was all that IDCC could extract in 1999, but what a time consuming mess it has created. JMHO

I don't believe that even nok feels that it can get around IDCC's 3g patent portfolio, but the rate that it and eventually the rest of the group pays for this ipr is the big question. So looking at it from the perspective of what is good for nok will be good for the other cross licensed oem's, my question is what is the best case scenario for nok? I keep coming back to a scenario that IDCC gets bought out and nok's obligations are buried in cross license arrangements already in place. Nok's function now is simply to keep the IDCC stock price at bay, with endless litigation and underminding of the 3g portfolio. This is all speculation on my part, but it seems a more likely outcome than IDCC licensing 100% by 2009. Please poke holes in my argument- I NEED a pep talk since I now actually admit that ams is making sense.

Since it appears that nok is the indemnifier and that none of the named triggers is going to voluntarily sign a 3g contract, I believe that IDCC knows it must negotiate 3g rates directly with nok or slap them with an infringement suit. The rest of the dominoes will fall only when nok does. By trying to coerce a named trigger we are only setting ourselves up for a repeat of the 2g trigger fiasco with multiple arbs and at least 5 more years of stalling. The only way that investors will realize the potential we have all seen is to directly attack the snake and cut its head off. In the meantime, we must be content to sign more licensees not affiliated with nok and their cross license game. I believe we will see monies from nok and samsung by years end for 2g and this will give us the arsenal for the mother of all lawsuits, as far as IDCC is concerned,and it will be a long drawn out affair.Hopefully we can negotiate rates with nok and the others will follow, but right now we are stuck in the triggered contract game with the biggest player.

Let's say for discusssion purposes, the arb panel comes back with a decision that samsung DOESN'T have a 3g agreement with IDCC. The immediate leverage IDCC has to get Sam to sign would be the Cingular contract and the threat of an injunction. Without the proof of infringement, this won't happen and we are back to square one.Nok continues to indemnify the triggers, while trying to undermind IDCC's 3g portfolio with attacks on essentiality. So what is finally going to unlock the 65% cartel? Just my opinion, but I think IDCC is waiting for the arbs to finish and the amounts owed firmly established before going after a named trigger with an infringement lawsuit that will be THE watershed event for this company.This will unfortunately be a long drawn out affair with a settlement being the likely outcome.

olddog967-So the real news we are awaiting in the Sam arb is whether or not Sam has a 3g contract that requires the same trigger mechanism as nok. I can't imagine the arb panel for sam underminding the previous panel regarding the trigger issue, so basically what we can really expect that is new is a decision that is supposedly binding on both parties to determine if a 3g agreement is already in place. Of course either party can appeal, as we have already witnessed with nok, but if sam is deemed to have a 3g license by osmosis, then we certainly won't see a dime until nok is triggered. As for the 2g monies owed by nok and sam, I wouldn't expect a check from either of them until next year at the earliest. The point here is that nok has been able to string out a triggered contract obligation for 2g for what will probably be 4 years without payment.This is a precedent for the real deal, 3g, and we still have to wait for a trigger. Hopefully, the arb panel won't be hoodwinked by the nok/sam alliance and we can finally put a wedge between them to create an infringement scenario that will settle once and for all the value of our ipr.Until then, we will need to concentrate on the rest of the 35% of the market we don't have licensed that isn't protected by the indemnifier nok.jmho-welcome comments.

Question re Samsung arb: Is there anything other than the trigger question going to be decicded by the arb panel? Since Sam has mfl rights for 2 and 2.5g under the agreement and has agreed to be hitched to nok's rates, I can't imagine Sam forking out any money until nok has to. Is it Sam's contention that since it agreed to be tied to nok's 1999 license agreements that it also has the same rights to a 3g agreement as nok? If so, is this going to be decided by the arb decision we are awaiting?

After reading the Dimes report regarding the evolution of the standards boards and the powers behind these boards, I have an even greater respect for Bill Merritt and his management team. The obstacles that a company, such as IDCC, must overcome to be a major player in wireless, are much greater than I anticipated 6 years ago when I first invested here. In an open and fair system, a company with the patented R&D that IDCC currently has in 3g, would have no trouble signing non-triggered paying licenses from all the oem's. All our dreams would have been realized as shareholders and the future would even be brighter. However, the system in which we are trying to license is closed and very tightly controlled. The powerful 2g players are not about to give up their positions without a fight and an interloper such as IDCC is going to have to acquiesce to their terms or expect a protracted legal battle at every turn. There has to be a compromise somewhere, otherwise the market place suffers, but what will trigger that and when, is the question.

Corp-What reason would Samsung have to negotiate rates at this point in time , with nok running the point to beat down 2g and 3g patents. I would expect the arb panel to render a decision similar to nok's that the trigger has been pulled, but just can't come up with a compelling reason for sam to pay up before they find out what nok does. Hope I'm wrong, but don't see anything to change the strategy of delay.

It seems to me that what England has done is to allow a company to sign a license agreement for a patent portfolio,and refuse to pay, while it challenges the portfolio piece meal for essentiality. So where is this all going? Is this just the first salvo by nok to string this thing out endlessly, while its cohorts sit on the sidelines hiding behind the need for proof of essentiality? What an incredible mess this standards concept has created without some sort of third party verification of essentiality.The Dime report does a great job in giving the history and motives behind this fiasco and IDCC is the poster boy for showing the intended effect of keeping out anyone not associated with the old guard -GSM.

Thanks olddog for link to England proceedings. Some questions come to mind after reading the transcript and hopefully someone here can help. First, is England the only place that allows challenging the essentiality of a patent after a license has been issued? Even the ETSI disclaimer cited says that any potential licensee should contact the patent holder to establish the status of a disclosed patent family PRIOR to making a patent licensing decision. Evidently the English court system feels that it can better determine essentiality of a patent to a standard than can a major company within the field. Secondly,the way I understand this, nok has challenged 2 patents in 2g and 30 patents of 186 or more that IDCC has proclaimed essential for 3g in England and the 30 patents pertain to FDD technology. So even if the judge decides none of these patents to be "essential" what has nok really gained? The decision is only applicable in England and there are plenty of patents left that can be deemed essential. So once again "why"?

Can anyone provide leap symbol for IDCC? tia

Looking at this drop from the other side-seems to be a very fortuitous event for someone wanting to pick up shares on the cheap and may have been a test run for future purchases. Sorry if this sounds conspiratorial in nature, but I just can't get the logical conclusion, of this company being bought out, from my thought process. Even the share buy back fits and with consolidation beginning, there is no way the wireless industry gurus want another qcom getting in their shorts. The "event", whatever the cause, shows how easily manipulated our share price is and probably will continue to be until the suitor feels the time is right for an offer. The continual undermining of our patent portfolio is also designed to purchase this company on the cheap. This is all just speculation on my part, and I sincerely hope I am wrong.The only way I see this turning out differently is for some "major single event" to occur that will force nok,mot,se,samsung etal to sign(AND PAY FOR) 3g licenses without protracted legal proceedings.JMHO

Since we are a news driven stock and no news has been delivered, what accounts for this large spike in volume? Are we the new darlings of the hedge funds or some channeling players?

I'd actually be more worried if there wasn't news tomorrow or soon that caused this big of a drop on this much volume. To me that would signify a bigger shift in perception regarding IDCC's future value or the time factor in achieving that value.

Bottom line, any news regarding two 2g patents or arb news does not affect the long term value of this company whose strength is in 3g.

Shouldn't we be hearing something soon on Samsung arb results?

L2V-You may have a good idea regarding tier concept of 3g rates and I have said for quite a while that nok's actions definitely smack of ulterior motives. The one point that seems consistant however is their strategy to attack essentiality of IDCC's patents thru their actions in England and Lanham in Delaware. This seems like a last ditch effort to undermine IDCC, since nok has lost at every turn. This may be nok's final bargaining chip and if they lose regarding essentiality in 2 cases, along with the arb loss regarding a triggered contract and a 3g license in place, it is lights out. The final act of stupidity would be to allow IDCC to follow up with breach and infringement actions, but don't rule this out from the stubborn finns. If the 2 parties don't reach a settlement soon, then I believe that there definitely is something to a theory of collusion amongst the remaining non licensed major oem's. The only way out for them is to buy IDCC or start signing up fast, because they are all running out of excuses for not licensing.JMHO

continued-in TDD research. All three companies knew darn well that IDCC had made significant contributions with their ipr, but because no product was being produced, they decided to roll the dice and hope IDCC would fail. The real question has never been whether IDCC patents were essential to the workings of 2g, 3g,etc., but who controlled the decision of essentiality. IDCC didn't fail and by virtue of new players recognizing the portfolio as being essential, IDCC has taken the cross licensing litmus test and stuck it up nok's ass. The industry sorely needs an unbiased, objective, and knowledgable outside observer to settle the nebulous concept of essential patents. The good old boy network needs to be shut down and true innovation must be free to enter the market. A strong message must be sent now that past behavior by the bullies will no longer be tolerated and the market place will judge who has the goods.

Does anyone know where this concept of essentiality came from, what the purpose was,and whether it is even legal for a standards board to require it without a way of determining any disputes as to claims? The standards board, in my understanding, was created to assure interoperability amongst those participating and reflected input from "the board members". Since the board members all had cross licensing agreements any disputes as to whether a patent was essential were virtually rendered moot. Since IDCC was not allowed on the 2g standards board, because they did not have cross licensing capability,any claims to having essential patents would have to be decided by those choosing to license the patent portfolio or chance infringing those patents. The troika of MEN all took different paths to dealing with IDCC-Mot lucked out in court because Markman Hearings had not yet been established,Eric eventually was forced to settle, and nok voluntarily signed a license agreement for 2g and 3g and paid $51 million to partner.

In a Lanham claim is the burden of proof on Nok to prove the patents are not essential or does IDCC have to prove they are essential? Since the Lanham claims regard 3g essentiality, I thought IDCC was a member of the board that determines the standards to be used and approves essentiality of ipr.If this isn't the case then in essence, any company can be forced to prove that their technology is essential to the standard, whether or not it is being used. Sounds like one big word game where facts become secondary-if you use it then it's essential, if you don't then it's not.

I thought the Delaware action was regarding 3g, but now the Lanham Act complaint could be regarding the two patents being decided as essential or non essential by an English Judge? I thought the 2g challenge in England was merely to influence the arbitration, and any decision made over there could only help IDCC, not hurt it. This is worse than figuring out what the definition of "is" is.