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.
MMI patents valued at $4.5 billion...
Sorry if this has article been posted before. Most of the estimates I have seen have said that Google's 12.5 billion price placed a value of around 6-9 billion for the MMI patents. Maybe this be another reason why IDCC is slipping today? Fairweather fans who read this article are bailing out because they realize that Google didn't pay as much of a premium for the MMI patents as originally thought?
According to one tax expert, Google will be able to "reap $700 million a year in tax deductions from future profits each year through 2019. Google also will be able to immediately reduce its taxes by $1 billion due to Motorola Mobility's U.S. net operating loss, and by a further $700 million due to its foreign operating loss."
Another analyst "estimated the $12.5 billion purchase price represented a $4.5 billion value for Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio, $3.2 billion in cash the company holds, a $3 billion handset and TV set-top business, and $1.7 billion in net operating loss tax benefits it has been unable to use."
http://news.yahoo.com/insight-motorola-deal-offers-google-tax-patent-benefits-110742808.html
HP’s 2,000 webOS patents and how they could reshape everything
http://scobleizer.com/2011/08/21/hps-2000-webos-patents-and-how-they-could-reshape-everything/#ixzz1VgadcLVO
Last night I was talking with a VP who works at HP on the former Palm team. He told me they have 2,000 patents for webOS, smart phones, and TouchPad.
Now remember, Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobile, mostly to get their hands on the 17,000 patents that Motorla held. Now, if you just price HP’s patents at the same price, you come out with $1.48 billion. HP paid $1.7 billion for Palm. So that gets you pretty close to even.
But this VP told me that these patents are almost ALL for modern smartphones, while the Motorola patents included a lot of old stuff that isn’t relevant anymore. So, this patent portfolio could get a premium of, say, 2x what the Motorola patents did. That gets you up close to $3 billion.
And that’s JUST for the patents. They have a few other assets as well:
1. The team is still mostly intact (at least this weekend) and has many talented engineers who used to work on Apple’s iPhone (including the VP who was talking with me).
2. They have lots of UI expertise. webOS is still ahead of all the other smartphone UIs in terms of usability and multitasking ideas. My best friend, Luke Kilpatrick, who works on social media team at VMware, keeps showing me his Palm phone and making fun of my “old school” iPhone.
3. They were working on a 7-inch tablet, and a variety of other things.
So, in the war between Apple, Google, and Microsoft (really the others don’t matter too much to the future) how could the Palm teams reshape the mobile market?
Well, let’s assume Microsoft plonked down the $4 billion to buy this team and patents. They would rejuvenate their mobile team with fresh engineers, and give them even more patents to go after Google with.
What if Apple plonked down the cash? Same thing, only much of this team has already worked at Apple so knows the culture and could fit right in.
Google? Google could benefit the most because its UI is still the worst out of the three major players and it might benefit the most from the additional insurance of the patent portfolio.
One other thing, there was a report that said webOS ran twice as fast on an iPad than on HP’s own hardware.
He said that, while somewhat true, that was only a part of the OS and only some of the times. What they were looking at is the kinds of optimizations that Apple did to its graphics subsystems. He said that while working at Apple they did a ton of work on lots of small graphics areas, which is why the UI feels so “smooth” there. For instance, he said they spent a ton of time just getting a list to scroll at 60 frames per second. That was VERY hard to do, he said, and used it as an example of the kinds of optimizations that very few people outside of the engineers at these big companies understand and that even the press that reports things like “runs twice as fast” don’t understand.
It’s that kind of engineering that is about to be let loose on the world and the other companies know it.
“My phone has been ringing off the hook from recruiters,” he said, while saying that most of his buddies on the team will hang at HP until at least October to see what happens. He knows there’s still deep economic value in the patents and the people who are working on webOS and that if they band together they might get rewarded well.
But the clock is ticking and it’ll be interesting to see what the management does and how they shop around this team and patent portfolio.
One question: what if Facebook bought the team and Google bought the patents?
Now wouldn’t THAT be a hoot? Facebook needs more mobile engineers and could use a team of great UI and expert mobile engineers to build tablet and mobile apps.
We also talked about how the team could transform the TV business. “We were already thinking about that,” he told me. Seems the Google TV business would be rejuvenated by a bunch of new blood who knew how to make good UIs and fun hardware (even though they were always late to the market with the hardware there still is a lot of expertise on that team).
Yes I realize it is common, it just seemed odd to report that in the article. It makes it seem like all of the other attendees to the party didn't need to be "dragged into it", they just showed up on the front doorstep.
All just semantics, and trying to read tea leaves when there aren't any tea leaves to be read...
uh... enyaw, isn't that the title that I posted?
Samsung has been odd from the first news report. Samsung had to be "invited" to the party. Why was it so important for the article to say Samsung was looking at IDCC's patents after they "had been approached to make a bid."
As far as their denying the speculation in today's news, if they actually are going to bid, they probably could not disclose that information anyway. And, I have never seen where Samsung was willing to bid up to $5 billion.
Samsung Said to Be Examining InterDigital After Being Invited to Make Bid
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/samsung-is-said-to-examine-interdigital-s-patents-after-approach-for-bid.html?cmpid=yhoo
Nicmar, I read somewhere that Mmi has over $1billion in future tax credits, would that need to be included in the calculations trying to value the patents?
Kodak Launches Sale of Patents
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514643605257846.html?mg=reno-wsj#printMode
By DANA MATTIOLI
Eastman Kodak Co. has kicked off its patent sale, as the beleaguered imaging company seeks to ride the bull market for patents and capitalize on its intellectual property in the booming market for tablet computers.
Investment bank Lazard Ltd. began marketing the portfolio this week, reaching out to companies that might be interested, said a person familiar with the matter.
One interested company is a large, strategic buyer in the wireless industry looking to use the patents for defensive protection, said another person familiar with the matter.
Wonder if it's the same person familiar with the IDCC matter? ;)
Paheka, what I am saying is that it would be easier for a regulatory agency to block MSFT from buying IDCC as for MSFT it is a pure patent play and not related to their core business.
Why does MSFT need wireless patents? They do not need it for their OS, so a regulatory agency could assume that MSFT is buying it to unfavorably suppress the competition. Just look at Google's reaction after Nortel and imagine what they would scream if MSFT buys IDCC.
MSFT can mask the patent play by having Nokia purchase IDCC and then later buy Nokia.
Or, MSFT can buy Motorola out from under Google and then buy IDCC.
Will Microsoft Top Google's Bid For Motorola Mobility?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/08/16/will-microsoft-top-googles-bid-for-motorola-mobility/
Right. IDCC's wireless protocol patents are associated with the hardware and firmware and probably have very little dependencies on the OS. If Microsoft buys the IDCC patents, it would be easier for Google to cry "foul" because Microsoft cannot fully utilize the patents. Same way Google cried foul about the Nortel patents.
However, Google can make no claim at all if Nokia buys IDCC, as IDCC's patents are essential to Nokia's hardware/firmware.
Art
zip, I think you guys are not addressing my point. Neither Google or Microsoft currently make cellphones, they make OS's. We have read several comments that regulatory agencies might consider the purchase of IDCC by Google as a pure patent play with the sole intent to block competition, and possibly not allow the sale.
However, Google is now in the handset business and "needs" wireless protocol patents as part of normal business operations.
Microsoft does not make handsets and would come under the same scrutiny. Therefore, they tell NOK to buy IDCC, which regulatory agencies would not be able to block. Then Micrsoft buys IDCC down the road.
That could explain why Google decided to buy MMI first.
Hi jmpaesq, what do you think of this?
MSFT and Google believe that if they buy IDCC outright, there is possibility of the sale being blocked, because they are pure IP patent plays. Almost all of IDCC patents center around wireless protocol, while MSFT and Google are involved with Operating Systems.
However, if Google buys MMI, MMI needs wireless protocols, so it is not just a patent play. And in MSFT's case, they get Nokia to buy IDCC, and then later this year, they buy Nokia.
Apple of course, could buy IDCC directly without any worries because they need wireless protocols.
Sonic,
None of the previous news about Google, Apple and Samsung were from "IDCC management", but undisclosed sources, people "familiar with the matter". In other words, it could have been the fortune teller down the street, and the reader has to rely on the credibility of the writer/publisher. These are not officially tied to IDCC and do not represent IDCC.
In the Mpartner release, Shuttleworth specifically identifies IDCC Management as the source.
Also those initial reports said that the companies were "looking at", "considering" and "reviewing". "Bidders" could be interpreted to mean that IDCC has either already received bids or that multiple companies have signed intents to bid on IDCC. That is much more material than these vague reports.
Below are the two initial reports for Google and Samsung.
July 21 - Google Inc has held talks about buying U.S. wireless chip technology company InterDigital to boost its patent portfolio, the Wall Street Journal said on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.
August 3 - Samsung Electronics Co., the world’s second-largest maker of mobile phones, is examining InterDigital Inc.’s patent portfolio after being approached to make a bid, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Kodak next to go?
sorry if this is a repost.
Google's Motorola bid shrinks mobile patent supply
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20092762-93/googles-motorola-bid-shrinks-mobile-patent-supply/
Here's an excerpt, remember who the judge was?
But MDB's Marlett has no doubts that the patent arms race will continue, and he thinks the next big portfolio to go could be Kodak. The imaging company said last month that it is considering selling some 1,100 patents covering capturing, storing, organizing, and sharing digital images, increasingly important technology for mobile devices. Those could include an image previewing technology patent that Kodak alleges is being infringed upon by Apple and Research In Motion.
That patent alone has huge financial significance for the various companies fighting the patent arms war. That's because there's so much uncertainty surrounding it. The administrative law judge overseeing the case at the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in January that phones from Apple and RIM do not infringe on the patent. But a full ITC panel rejected parts of that decision, forcing him to reconsider the case. But just last month, the judge announced plans to retire, reassigning the case to another administrative law judge.
"If you're Apple, are you going to let Google buy those patents? No way," Marlett said. "I believe the bidding on those patents is going to be ferocious."
IQ, best of luck tomorrow. I sold some on Monday, still not sure when I'm going to reload. Been in this stock way too long....
Nicmar, sorry but you can't trade on this information tomorrow. It was information that Shuttleworth released yesterday. He probably released the intraday report after he placed orders to buy at 59, and that may be one of the reasons why IDCC started recovering around "intra-day". All speculation of course, but this is the kind of information that insiders can take advantage of before it is publicly disclosed.
IDCC has never made any public announcements about the process or any bidders, and if IDCC management tells a private investment firm that "there are multiple bidders" they are violating their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders.
Completely agree. This info should not be disclosed to m partners before it is made public. Inside info in my opinion, and IDCC could be in trouble for not releasing it public.
GOOG had to do it. MMI was worried that if they lose Microsoft and/or Apple lawsuits before the deal closes, GOOG might walk away leaving MMI high and dry.
Just a WAG on my part, can't see any other reason why MMI would be able to command the 2.5 billion.
Apple and Microsoft not deterred by MMI patents.
Interesting article, a couple of paragraphs below.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/08/first-reaction-to-googlemotorola.html
"I said before on Twitter that Motorola's patent portfolio didn't deter Apple and Microsoft from asserting patents against them in the past. Those lawsuits are ongoing, and I listened in to Google's and Motorola Mobility's conference call explaining the deal. Google's chief legal officer said that those lawsuits would continue unchanged as long as Motorola Mobility is independent, but indicated that after the possible closing of the deal, Google's interests would come into play.
Generally speaking, if Google acquires control over Motorola Mobility (MMI) and tries to leverage MMI's patents for purposes going beyond what MMI would have demanded in such negotiations as an independent entity, it probably won't be easy for them to agree on settlement terms with those other companies."
PostStyle, agree with you about comparing IDCC vs MMI is apples and oranges. IDCC may have essential patents in 4G, but MMI has patents in the OS and GUI, which could be enough to thwart a lot of MSFT/Apple patent disputes.
For example, one of Apple's claims against HTC/Samsung is how the screen bounces when you reach the end of a list in a scroll, nothing to do with wireless.
Who knows, MMI could have a patent on how email is retrieved and displayed which they can claim Apple is violating.
Overall, one would hope that the important patents are worth more, but unfortunately that doesn't always seem to be the case.
Opens the door for Microsoft to buy nokia and idcc. with the combined patents of the three companies, Microsoft should still be able to collect royalties from all android devices.
bulldzr, you are right about the ITC, thanks for correcting my mistake. Whether the ITC chooses to review the latest filing by IDCC or not is just a blip on the radar screen.
If the CAFC ruling is in favor of IDCC, and if Apple bought IDCC outright, would Apple be able to make things difficult for Nokia and Microsoft? Or, are there too many cross-licenses between the three companies already in place that the only impact is really on how it affects Google?
Article: Mobile patent wars may end up with a truce...
Not sure if this has been posted, but a little food for thought. IMO, well written article, neutral and presents both sides of the coin.
Mobile industry patent wars may eventually end up with a truce - but not yet!
www.ibtimes.com/articles/197141/20110812/patent-tablet-iphone-ipad-sue-lawsuit-apple-google-samsung-ip.htm
Sophan, I think the CAFC and ITC decisions could have an impact on how the game is played out. If IDCC wins both, then I don't see Apple and Microsoft partnering together. Apple would look at IDCC as a chance to suppress both Android and Windows Phone 7, while Microsoft might feel they need the IDCC patents in order to keep their dream of the Windows Phone 7 alive.
If IDCC wins both, Apple and Microsoft will go it alone and won't partner up. And, there would be no incentives for any other companies to partner with Apple or Microsoft, but Google could line up a list like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, LG, etc...
JMHO. There are so many dynamics in play here though, none of us really know...
bulldzr, if IDCC wins the CAFC, do you see it providing Microsoft with more incentive to purchase IDCC? If IDCC wins the CAFC and Apple or Google buy IDCC, they could make life difficult for Nokia.
If you ask me, Microsoft is playing their cards pretty smart when it comes to Android. They have the potential of generating revenue from every Android sold, currently collecting $5 from HTC for each device and working on a contract with Samsung. And, to top it off, they can buy off carriers like Verizon to have Bing installed as the default search engine on Android devices.
Of the big three, I believe Microsoft has the experience to be able to effectively license IDCC's patents. Of course, none of them may be interested in licensing at all and holding onto IDCC's patent like an Ace up the sleeve.
Android Patent Infringement: Licensing is the Solution
Qualcomm and Google?
Not sure if this has been posted before, but an interesting article about Google and Qualcomm.
Qualcomm’s secret fix to the Android problem
One of the more interesting comments:
Qualcomm is one of a handful of vendors that have a complete hardware package for Android — all of the components from processors, to graphics, to modems and radios. It is even developing screen technology that could be used to more positively differentiate some phones with better battery life and better outdoor view ability.
Qualcomm also has one of the largest patent portfolios in the business, and one of the largest software units. That may mean the company can indemnify more of the phone and better assure the quality of devices that use the full suite of Qualcomm’s offerings. The indemnification part is weak, largely because much of the exposure is sourced in Google and not in anything Qualcomm can do. But the ability to better assure the quality of the phone by helping to complete it is not.
IDCC has done U.S. govt work in the past, what kind of restrictions would a foreign company face when trying to buy IDCC?
bim524, I think Microsoft makes more sense from a "businesss standpoint" than Apple or Google. MS is better positioned to actually license the IDCC patents, as they are very experienced in that arena. And, of course, the IDCC's patents are just another ace in the hole for Microsoft, as they need all of the cards they get because they indemnify all of their Windows Phone 7 manufacturers (That must be for OS only, can't see how MS could be indemnifying wireless). Throw in IDCC's patents with every Windows 7 phone license, and Microsoft has just given a phone manufacturer a huge incentive to choose Windows Phone over Android.
I find it ironic that MS is projected to make up to a billion dollars next year on licensing OS level patents to HTC, Samsung and other manufacturers for each and every Android product.
jmpaesq, dmiller thank you! You two are like Frued's id and super-ego, the devil on one shoulder, and an angel on the other. Or, good cop, bad cop if you want to look at it that way.
jmpaesq, thanks for showing what the future could be.
dmiller, thanks for making sure we don't actually forget exactly where we are right now.
Inside look at $4.5B Nortel auction reveals battle of wills between Apple, Google
Sorry if the article below before has been posted before. It gives a good idea of the players, and what they were paying for. Apple was able to slice and dice it to get exactly what they wanted, "outright ownership of Nortel’s Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."
IMHO Apple, Google and other potential buyers are reviewing all of IDCC's patents and trying to come up with a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, Apple may be approaching other companies to see if they have interest in patents applicable to base station only.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/01/inside_look_at_4_5b_nortel_patent_auction_reveals_battle_of_wills_between_apple_google.html
Friday, July 1, 2011
Inside look at $4.5B Nortel auction reveals battle of wills between Apple, Google
By Josh Ong
Published: 10:00 PM EST
A behind-the-scenes profile of this week's auction for a group of patents from Nortel revealed a "fast and furious" battle between technology giants Apple and Google.
According to people with knowledge of the situation, the auction saw last minute allegiances and alignments over four days of intense bidding that drove the cost up to more than three times the price expected by some analysts, Reuters reported on Friday.
The auction started with five parties, including two consortiums: Apple, Intel, Google, a consortium of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.
Sources said Intel started the bidding on Monday with a $1.5 billion bid. The RPX consortium, which included Chinese handset maker Huawei, dropped out after the first round of the auction. RPX reportedly sought to partner with another company after withdrawing from the auction, but was unable to broker a deal.
"It did become clear to us very quickly that this was something that a bunch of big companies with humongous balance sheets had decided was strategic for them," RPX Chief Executive John Amster said. "Clearly at a price at this level it had to be strategic, and they could afford that."
On Tuesday night, the Ericsson consortium stopped bidding, eventually joining up with Apple. "When people drop out, you try to partner people," a source told the publication. "It is pretty common in auctions because you are trying to get together people who have reached their individual limits and they still have interest in the assets."
Intel backed out on Wednesday, prompting "heated negotiations" over the next 24 hours as each remaining party tried to convince the chipmaker to join them. The company eventually chose to team up with Google.
According to sources, the Apple-led consortium went by the name "Rockstar," while Google's side called itself "Ranger." Adding to the drama was the fact that Apple and Google hold some of the largest cash reserves in the industry, with war chests estimated at $66 billion and $37 billion, respectively.
"Then it was fast and furious $100 million allotments until they got to $3 billion, at which point Google asked for permission to bid more," a source said. "They bid through $4 billion and tapped out," conceding the patents to the "Rockstar" team, who placed a winning bid of $4.5 billion.
The search giant declined to comment when contacted by the publication, though it did call the auction results "disappointing." Google had hoped to substantially expand its patent holdings, which are smaller than the portfolios of older, more established technology giants like Apple and Microsoft, through the auction.
"Following a very robust auction, we are pleased at the outcome of the auction of this extensive patent portfolio" George Riedel, Nortel's Chief Strategy Officer and President of Business Units, said in a statement after the conclusion of the auction. "The size and dollar value for this transaction is unprecedented, as was the significant interest in the portfolio among major companies around the world."
Also worth noting are indications by sources that Google's bids were "mystifyingly precise" and often contained references to mathematics, such as Brun's constant and Meissel-Mertens.
"It was not clear what strategy Google was employing, whether it wanted to confuse rival bidders, intimidate them, or simply express the irreverence that is part and parcel of its corporate persona," the report noted, while one source suggested the company was either "supremely confident" or just bored.
The run-up to the auction had been closely watched, with analysts and legal experts characterizing the the patent trove as a "nuclear arsenal" of intellectual property. U.S. federal agencies scrutinized potential bidders over concerns that the patents could be wielded for anti-competitive moves.
The Department of Justice conducted an antitrust investigation into a $900 million starting bid from Google, ultimately approving the bid. Meanwhile, the FTC looked into whether Apple would use the patents offensively against competitors before granting the company clearance to bid.
Update: I, Cringelyreports that, according to people familiar with the matter, Apple paid $2 billion to for "outright ownership of Nortel’s Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android." RIM and Ericsson paid $1.1 billion together for a license to the portfolio. In addition, RIM will receive Canadian tax breaks for shouldering some of Nortel's operating losses and could potentially break even on the deal.
Meanwhile, Microsoft and Sony reportedly together put up another $1 billion. Finally, storage maker EMC brokered a side deal for about $400 million that grants the company sole ownership of a subset of the patents.
"At the end of the day this deal isn’t about royalties. It is about trying to kill Android," the report noted.
Jim, don't you think that MKM partners was confused with M partners on the Atomic Bob's board?
Thanks NukeJohn. Google's already been working on compression, maybe they see some synergies with IDCC's technology.
Below are a couple of links, and also the text from Shuttleworth's interview.
Google Acquires Video Compression Technology Company On2
http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/05/google-acquires-video-compression-technology-company-on2-for-106-million/
Google announces WebP image compression format to lighten JPEG’s load up to 40%
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/google-announces-webp-image-compression-format-to-lighten-jpegs-load-up-to-40-2010101/
Shuttleworth Interview
------------------------
They invented some technology around video compression that we saw in Barcelona and we think it could be very disruptive. They can compress compressed video. Now, when Sandvine tells the world that 1% of Netflix subscribers represent 20% of mobile data capacity, video is a big problem. And we think that Interdigital might have a solution for that. They're in trials already, they don't know how they're going to make money off of it yet, but they will soon and we think it's a pretty good play. If you can reduce the band width of a movie by 20 times you've got a pretty big impact. That's a silver bullet.
Any info on IDCC's compression technology?
Didn't Shuttleworth say that IDCC's compression advances are a "disruptive technology"? I think I also read that the compression ratios are up to 10x better than current technologies.
If IDCC's video compression technology is "only" two to three times better, both Apple and Google would still "sell their souls" to obtain the technology. Both have been ramping up video streaming, and if IDCC's technology is that good and is patent protected, whichever company purchased IDCC would instantly have a huge advantage. I would think that in this scenario, IDCC's compression technology might even be more valuable to Apple/Google than the wireless patents.
I did find one mention, from
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/google-and-apple-fight-for-interdigital-patents-34834
The company is also testing a video compression technique that requires only a fraction of the normal bandwidth without degrading video quality. Such technology on mobile devices “would be of high interest to Apple and Google,” Misek said.
Article is not written by Forbes, but is a blog on the Forbes website. Forbes does not control the content of blogs, and almost anyone can set up their own blog if they really want. The owner of the blog is mobiledia.com, so you can decide on your own whether it is credible or not. The source of mobiledia's information is probably the same as everyone elses.
Here's the details on Mobiledia:
Registrant:
Allen Tsai
14F-1 No. 68, Roosevelt Rd. Sec. 4
Taipei, 100
TW
Phone: +886.0918735557
Email: mobiledia@mobiledia.com
---------------------------------
Here's how you can get your own blog on Forbes:
---------------------------------
We’re always looking for new contributors at Forbes. We don’t take pitches for individual stories, but we welcome ideas for ongoing sites.
Send us a short email at voices@blogs.forbes.com, and please include the following:
» Concept for your Forbes page (an overall theme and a few story ideas; credibility, knowledge and expertise are key)
» Links or attachments with samples of your work (we prefer links)
» Background on you and why you’re an expert on the topic you’re pitching
» Contact information (email and phone number)
We’ll take a look, and get back to you.
We appreciate your interest in Forbes. Come browse around while you’re here…
Mooseo1, take a look at the sentence again, the two companies being referred to are IDCC and Google.
DR, that's the best post I have ever read on this board!
My wife was joking with me today saying "what are we going to do when we sell IDCC? How can we find another stock like IDCC to invest in?"
I was laughing thinking that I never want to invest in a stock like IDCC ever again, this roller coaster ride is heart stopping at times!
still crazy after all of these years... still long after all of these years!
Perfect storm! Why Google and Microsoft want IDCC
What? No Apple? IMO, Apple doesn't need IDCC as much as Google and Microsoft do. The only way I can see Apple buying IDCC is if they see something in IDCC which they could leverage to create a new disruptive technology.
Some optimistic speculations have been flung out that by 2012, Microsoft could be collecting up to $1 billion a year from Android manufacturers because Android infringes on Microsoft patents. Companies like HTC have actually signed contracts with Microsoft, paying Microsoft money for every Android phone/tablet. Even at half of that, $500 million a year is a nice little chunk of change for Microsoft.
It really must eat at Google's management that Microsoft is trying to make anywhere from $5 to $15 per phone sale, while Google is only making around $10 per year from the phone advertisements.
Not to mention the fact that cell phone (and tablet) manufacturers may start to lose confidence in Android, because Google does not indemnify them from third party lawsuits. Why would a manufacturer stay with Android and have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft, Apple and who else? Just buy the Microsoft OS for a few bucks more and relax knowing that Microsoft's OS comes with a full indemnity clause protecting you.
So Google can fight back by buying IDCC and gain some bargaining chips. Google also inherits the Nokia situation, which if played right might put a huge damper on the hopes and dreams of Microsoft Phone.
To me, Microsoft is the most intriguing player, and I don't believe I have seen them mentioned as a possible suitor. Why would Microsoft want IDCC? It keeps Google's patent cupboard barren and could help ensure Microsoft's Android revenue stream for the near future.
Another thing to consider, Microsoft seems to be excellent at licensing technologies, so they may be able to get more out of IDCC's patents than IDCC ever imagined.
Now for the fun part. Google is big on numbers and will bid exactly twice as much as they did for the Nortel contracts, exactly $6,283,185,307. Microsoft will beat them out with a cool $7.5 billion bid. All just wild speculation on my part.
for comparison only. QCOM's AGR score is 39.
AGR® Score
Audit Integrity
QUALCOMM Inc. is currently rated as having Average Accounting & Governance Risk (AGR®), receiving an AGR Score of 39 percentile among the approximately 8,000 companies in North America rated by Audit Integrity, indicating higher accounting and governance risk than 61% of the other companies.
data says step... the stock JUMPS!
Thanks Ellix for posting the links, that's good information!
Hi Ellix, I'm a little confused about the short data you posted, can you provide more info on where you got your data from?
You list 954044 as total volume today, but weren't there actually almost 2.7 million shares traded?
artk