sab63090 and Postyle .. Supposedly the ethics have changed:

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=fab43b1d-2047-4553-8595-46d5175d1ddc

Can "St. Antony" pull it off? The odds are not good but if he can and others follow suit it can only be good for the individual investor .. notice he is from the retail (individual) side of the business. Sounds like he may have gotten tired of his clients being duped by investment banking controlled "research."

Good luck to all.

Danny

Mister .. Smart enough (BSIE Northeaster University, MBA Harvard Business School) and experienced enough (25+ years on Wall Street) to know that blind loyalty and gullibility, whether it be to financial advisors who are friends or to stocks, is far more likely to result in losses than gains.

I didn't impune your friend's integrity directly. I just asked common sense questions .. none of which you answered .. that any investor doing proper DD would ask on an annual basis at least regarding their financial advisor even if .. make that particularly if .. they are long term close friends. Financial advisors are only as good as their most recent 2 - 3 year trailing performance.

I've seen your story up close and personal hundreds of times and it ALWAYS ends badly. I am not accusing your friend of being a Bernie Madoff .. but the only way he could have run his scheme unchallenged for as long as he did is because all of his investors considered him a "friend" which Bernie worked hard to make sure they felt that they were.

Perhaps if you had done a little DD on me before responding you might have concluded that I just might know what I am talking about on this subject:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=16749

Before I made my first post to you I clicked on your IHUB profile to learn what I could about you. Nothing.

My last post on this .. I'm sure that the folks on this board have better things to do than read exchanges between us.

Danny

Mister .. You are a broker's dream .. like taking candy from a baby. NO reputable financial advisor is at the same time his client's broker (can you say "double dipping" and "conflict of interest?" Aren't you the least bit concerned about the objectivity of his advice provided you re: IDCC given the significant size of his position? A good financial advisor would not own more than 10% of his portfolio in one position .. more likely to be 5% or less. So this advisor's portfolio is worth between $2.5 million and $5.0 million? What else does he hold? What is the original purchase cost of his IDCC position? Has he bought and/or sold any? Have you not wondered why he felt it necessary to show you his IDCC position .. I know of no professional financial advisor who would do such a thing unless they had some ulterior motive. Do you even know for certain that the statement he showed you was not created by him .. see Bernir Madoff.

Just curious .. did he put you into IDCC or did you put him into it?

Danny

zip .. I didn't know that anyone used a stock broker anymore, i.e. someone who is paid a commission based on the amount of shares transacted. No shares transacted .. no commission .. the kids starve. Buy, Sell but NEVER Hold is the advice in this scenario. So mister believes this stock broker owns 10,000 shares? Please have mister call me .. I have two or three bridges he might like to buy from me.

Olddog .. what the hell has happened to you .. you were the one person on this board who would have blown away this stock broker not for his opinion but for the validity and credibility thereof (as you correctly did with me more than once) and now you point to it as something of importance?????

Stand by your convictions and FACTUAL objectivity my friend .. it has never been needed more.

Best to all.

Danny

+10

To All ... JMO, JMO, JMO & FWIW, FWIW, FWIW

I have concluded that IDCC is a one company industry and as such it defies traditional fundamental analysis in terms of its relative value, management performance, IR, management compensation, litigation approach, S/P prospects, etc. etc. In fact it seems to me after reading these boards for almost 15 years, comparing its results to those of companies that are in multiple company industries to reach an investment conclusion is folly and is more likely to produce incorrect conclusions than valid ones both positively and negatively. Buy and Hold investors are up the creek without a paddle and are truly gambling on the conceptual business model rather than the company itself.

Having said that, the contrary is true for short-term traders and T/A investors. There couldn't be a better company to make money trading since die-hard investment fundamentalists are hard pressed to reach any investment conclusion at any time.


JMHO

Danny

Joel .. I really think you are mistaken in concluding that MP's statement that "Interdigital management disclosed .. " means that they actually stated that the process is proceeding as planned and that there are multiple bidders. Absent an actual quote from a named source in Interdigital management I would be careful to not rule out that this is just Ron's conclusion after asking several "are you still beating your wife" type questions.

MO,
Danny

ciciagt .. This should be made into a sticky note ASAP and all others should be removed. Everyone should read it two or three times a day. While past lack of comments from IDCC IR for many, many years can be criticized, in this case it is mandatory. At least to this point NONE of the speculation up or down (since the initial "up for sale" statement) can be attributed in any way, shape or form to any public pronouncements by IDCC and that is a good thing, a VERY good thing. Moreover, those who think that information is being passed privately except between potential buyers and IDCC's representatives in strict accordance to the confidentiality agreements, there is not a snowball's chance in hell (or at least I certainly hope so).

IDCC has NO obligation during this process to protect speculators, traders, option holders, those on margin, etc. who are in IDCC in whole or in part for short term gain. This is about maximizing shareholder value in the LONG term.

MO,
Danny

Hi Joel,

Management was executing a business plan that will maximize shareholder value .. they just didn't know it LOL. Who knows, if they were able to commercialize their patents from the get go maybe they would have underpriced them in their licensing activities and shareholder value would not have been maximized over the long term (not that we would be able to detect it). Matters not, that ain't going happen now .. not by a long shot and we have their ineffectiveness to thank for it.

Doing fine. Thanks for asking. Going to crawl (some here would say slither) back under my rock again.

Take care,
Danny

Hock1 .. Sure that is always a possibility but it would be WAAAY down my list of favorable outcomes. "Hostile" to me has always equated to someone buying a company on the cheap. A couple of times over the last few years I warned of the possibility of that taking place and that those I believed to be involved did not have our best interests at heart. No one will ever know if I was right or wrong about those "conspiracy theories" LOL.

Avoiding a hostile takeover is another excellent reason to use intermediaries in this process.

mo,
Danny

nic .. SIGH, As usual you quoted only the part of my post that supported you not getting an "atta boy."

My post was not about "intellectual credit" it was about credit for factual knowledge about the bidding process. "Wishes and projections" abound. Those that are based on a knowledge of the process carry much more weight with me.

Here is my full post of which you quoted only the first two sentences:

Loop and rockitt .. Clearly you both understand the why's and wherefores of IDCC hiring Barclay's and Evercore to explore a sale of the company. Others on this board have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in this area. First of all, the representative(s) prepare a "selling document" that all agree will be the ONLY information, written or verbal, provided to potential buyers and ONLY after they have signed a confidentiality agreement. This protects IDCC, their representatives and the potential buyers from even the hint of impropriety re: violating the "full disclosure" rules regarding the protection of inside information during the entire bidding process.

The stakes of a successful and "squeaky clean" process here are enormously high for the shareholders. There are companies, investment firms and even individuals who don't want this deal to happen and will look for any reason to blow it up. So no news is truly good news.

Take care,
Danny

sloane6 .. All true but I doubt (or certainly hope) that any of those discussions dealt with a potential sale beyond one that contained VERY minimal detail.

Loop and rockitt .. Clearly you both understand the why's and wherefores of IDCC hiring Barclay's and Evercore to explore a sale of the company. Others on this board have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in this area. First of all, the representative(s) prepare a "selling document" that all agree will be the ONLY information, written or verbal, provided to potential buyers and ONLY after they have signed a confidentiality agreement. This protects IDCC, their representatives and the potential buyers from even the hint of impropriety re: violating the "full disclosure" rules regarding the protection of inside information during the entire bidding process.

The stakes of a successful and "squeaky clean" process here are enormously high for the shareholders. There are companies, investment firms and even individuals who don't want this deal to happen and will look for any reason to blow it up. So no news is truly good news.

Take care,
Danny

AMCJAX .. I think it is more likely disgruntled long(s) who believe the company will be sold too low just so the BOD and Management can cash out .. wouldn't be the first time that happened. AND/OR, some disgruntled long(s) who harbor their own (unfriendly) takeover strategies that include positions on, and control of, the BOD. I have some long-time "usual suspects" in that regard that shall remain nameless for the sake of serenity on this board LOL. Just saying'

Danny

Yup .. never sold a share .. no big deal .. I am just a die hard buy and holder LOL

Hi All,

CONGRATULATIONS! X 1,000 to all of you. FWIW this is what I was afraid we would never get to see when Corp-Buyer & Estey were working furiously to buy us on the cheap.

ENJOY!
Danny

To All .. FINALLY coverage by a major firm!! IDCC still has to perform of course but no more wondering if WS is watching or even cares.

Congrats to all.

Danny

OT .. I went to the Food Pantry mailbox today and couldn't believe my eyes .. a check from a "long-time lurker" in PA. Amazing, truly amazing, not to mention inspiring.

Danny

To All .. All you ever need to know about stock splits: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/072501.asp

Hi All,

Jim sent me an e-mail asking that I comment on his post. I don’t follow the board anymore .. just the stock price. I couldn’t be happier for all of you. It’s ALL good and IMO its time for everyone on this board to follow the advice of the immortal Walter Hagen, “Don 't hurry. Don't worry. You're only here for a short visit. So don't forget to stop and smell the roses.”

I was recently reading about some of the golf greats and this excerpt about Hagen reminded me of IDCC, the master of the “recovery shot” in wireless and a leader in embarrassing wireless manufacturers into elevating non-manufacturing IP companies from “patent trolls” to the status their ingenuity deserves (see below):

As a player, his form was either superb or terrible. Luckily, he was a master of the recovery shot. Bobby Jones, after losing a 72-hole "World Championship" match to Walter Hagen: "When a man misses his drive, and then misses his second shot, and then wins the hole with a birdie, it gets my goat."

Despite these idiosyncrasies, there was a serious side to Hagen. Back then professionals were considered to be on the bottom rung of the golf pecking order, especially in Britain. They were not allowed to enjoy the facilities of the clubhouse and indeed were sometimes prohibited from entering it through the front door. However golf just mirrored a much wider division of men in society based on class and ancestry. As an American, Hagen had no time for this nonsense. After all, how can it be proper that those who are masters of their craft are considered second rate?

Once to highlight the stupidity of the situation, Hagen hired a Rolls Royce and footman and set himself up outside the clubhouse entrance. He used the Rolls Royce as a changing room given that he was prohibited from entering the clubhouse. On another occasion, he refused to enter a clubhouse to accept his prize because he was refused entry earlier in the day. No one did more to embarrass the golf establishment into elevating professionals to the status which their talents deserve.



ENJOY!

Danny

Hi Jim (and all),

Actually, I'm not "back." Just dropped by to say hi and congrats. I just follow the PPS now. Life has never been better for me. Thanks for asking. Spend almost all my time now on volunteering. I run the local food pantry and our volume of visitors has more than tripled in two years. Folks around here are very reluctant to ask for help so that is a real reality check.

Take care,
Jim

Hi All,

If this post turns out to lead to a price reversal, I swear I will slash my wrists LOL. I doubt VERY much that I will be forced to do so. I've been following the price action and this looks as real as I can recall and goodness knows we have had more than a few head fakes over the years. Very much deserved congratulations to all of you for having the courage of your convictions and regrets for so many of our friends (especially Raymond AKA artheritis who I talked with on a regular basis) who are not here to celebrate.

Regards,
Danny

Infinite_q and paheka .. I no longer participate on the Board. (See below for reasons.) A friend of mine sent me this article and I thought it was relevant to some of what I recall being discussed here. Paheka, you can send it to IDCC if you would like.

See:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45653486

Best,
Danny

Hi All .. Thought you might find this article interesting. Bill was a close friend of my partner when I was on WS and a valued client when he ran a prominent money management firm.. Not the dumbest guy in the world.

http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB126903923580264799-lMyQjAxMTIwNjI5NDAyMzQ5Wj.html#articleTabs_panel_article%3D1

Best,
Danny

Jim, Data, The Count and all .. Sorry for not returning your messages. We've had some significant health issues and several financial problems in both my and my wife's family. Then a mind-boggling tragedy happened two days after returning from visiting our daughter in Colorado for Thanksgiving. Our son-in-law's Mom was killed in a horrific car accident while on a Christmas shopping trip to Sioux City Iowa. We are fairly certain that she went into a diabetic shock before crossing three lanes of traffic and the median strip and crashing head on into a long-haul truck.

Just before her car and the truck burst into flames, the trucker pulled her out. She was alive, but barely, and died two hours later. When our son-in-law was seven his Dad was killed by a drunk driver. His Mom was a widow at 29 with three children. She never re-married and in addition to raising the children all on her own in the small town of Osmond Nebraska ( population about 700) she took over the running of the family well-drilling business for thirty years before the day she died.

Going to Osmond for the funeral was a life-changing wake-up call for both my wife and I. I'm sure we will never be the same again and we've done lots of soul searching regarding how we are going to live out the rest of our days. Watching and discussing the progress of IDCC .. something I truly enjoyed or at least thought I did .. seemed more and more like just burning daylight at a point in my life when the amount of daylight I have left might not be all that much. So I just stopped doing it. There were several other activities in my life that I would now categorize as "burning daylight" and they've gone by the wayside as well.

So my absence has nothing to do with IDCC or IHUB, nor am I suggesting that those who still actively participate on the Board are just "burning daylight." I wish all of you nothing but the best when it comes to IDCC and your lives.

Regards,
Danny

Dave .. You boyz love to play in the sandbox when it's raining out, don't you?

Never heard that one before .. can I borrow it? That pretty much sums up the value-added of the stock price color commentators on this board

MO,
Danny

Loop .. Very high volume now at 22.30 low of 22.10 .. looks like some who sold are buying back in.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/ExtendedTradingTrades.aspx?mode=&kind=&timeframe=&intraday=&charttype=&splits=&earnings=&movingaverage=&lowerstudy=&comparison=&index=&symbol=IDCC&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&FormType=&mkttype=PRE&pathname=&prevPage=quick&page=premarket&selected=IDCC

robjer .. My sincere apologies .. it was robweis NOT robjer that referred to me as a "Fudmeister":

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=42631089

My bad. Hope you can accept that it was an innocent mistake.

Danny

jai .. Not sure what you mean by "coming around." I was just responding to robjer that, rather than being a "Fudmeister" as he suggested, I thought it was self-evident that I was referring to a hostile takeover which will only happen with the removal of the poison pill. If there was a friendly bid out there for anything near $50/share which would likely include an opportunity for management to negotiate other goodies with the acquiring company it would have been snatched up in a heartbeat. I'm guessing that no one wants to pay that kind of premium without a free rein to get rid of management and others and replace them with their own which is part and parcel of a hostile takeover.

MO,
Danny

robweis .. Clearly the only takeover that will take place at this point that is most beneficial to us is a hostile one IMO. More money/shares for our IDCC shares and new management. Management in a friendly takeover typically hits the jack pot with multi-year management contracts, guaranteed bonuses, etc. in addition to selling their shares.

MO,
Danny

jai .. I'd like to sell my shares to CISCO at $50 a share.

So would I. And there is little doubt in my mind that such an offer would be forthcoming absent the poison pill. But don't you think that an IDCC management focused exclusively "on their own personal gravy trains" would be ecstatic to sell NOW at $50? It is certainly within their power to remove the poison pill. When it comes to offers for the company, what's good for us is orders of magnitude better for them.

MO,
Danny

Loop .. I thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry about that. I have no expectations for the CC. However, if the only topic discussed at the CC is what IDCC is going to do next about NOK, I will be VERY disappointed, frustrated and angry. More platitudes and rhetoric by WM about how IDCC is not all about NOK isn't going to cut it for me either. My hope is that WM will now feel it is responsibility to once and for all to clearly articulate .. using "Street talk" .. what he means by that.


MO,
Danny

olddog .. Thanks .. seems to add some credence to NOK being a special case. Maybe they are pissed that IDCC did not fully recognize NOK's contributions to the TDD Development Agreement. AND, maybe they are right. I sure hope so because, as "they" say that is a horse of a different color.

MO,
Danny

Loop .. I guess you are saying that there is NOTHING of value they can say to counter this news. That really surprises me coming from you with your athletic and legal background that had to have caused you to experience at least one or two inexplicable, gut-wrenching losses that you had to explain in terms of their effect on the future. If you really believe this .. or some version thereof .. is the best they can come up with then I suggest you are ethically bound to counsel your widow friends tomorrow to sell ALL of their IDCC shares in the pre-market on Monday BEFORE the CC and that you let them know you will be doing the same. I can assure you that if they can't come up in the CC with a rational, reasonable, and business-like counter to this news Re: IDCC's future, this shareholder will be exiting upon its completion ASAP at a lower price than you and your widow friends will be. So, you fold and I call. One of us will be right and the other will be wrong.

MO,
Danny

To All .. Like all of you, I have been perplexed by why IDCC's licensing efforts have been so frustrating, costly and unsuccessful with NOK when one considers that other significant major players in the wireless market have licensed .. either willingly or kicking and screaming. Then it occurred to me that there is one unique .. and perhaps considerably important .. difference between NOK and all of the others: NOK is the ONLY one that entered into a joint development effort with IDCC for 3g. Has that muddied the licensing waters? If the answer is no then we certainly do need to be worried about the negative impact on future licensing efforts from this decision. If the answer is yes, then perhaps NOK is truly a special case which would add credence to WM's comments that IDCC's future is not inextricably tied to a NOK license.

MO,
Danny

ghs1949 .. Who knows what they can say to counter this news BUT at least they are attempting to do it before the opening. I don't recall them ever having a CC before the market opened, so I would have to say that they recognize and are sensitive to the potential impact on shareholders.

xdx .. It was in the earnings release today see Dndodd's post # 272351.

MO,
Danny

David .. To me, NOK continues to play fast and loose in terms of full disclosure. Reading that paragraph one would assume that the case is over. No mention that IDCC has filed for a review and has possible other follow on appeal actions. Of such misleading by omission statements are shareholder class action suits sometimes made.

MO,
Danny

Loop .. Thanks .. eom.

Mickey and All .. Did my suggestion not prove to be actually a viable suggestion that is being deployed by law firms?

I certainly thought it did. It seems to me that was the ONLY point of all of your follow on posts. Of course, everyone that criticized/mocked your original post and your "unsupported" opinions would have to admit that this time you actually backed it up with factual examples. So kind of chicken and egg to me .. was it your original post and your responses to it being dismissed as ridiculous that cluttered up the board or was it the refusal of everyone to acknowledge that your suggestion was not as off the wall as it first appeared to be?

MO,
Danny