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.
Q picked a nice day to announce earnings like I picked a nice day to quit sniffing glue.
DR. that is an impressive number. On track for 1300 new patents granted this year. At a cost of ~$25,000 each thats an investment of over 32 million dollars just for filings. Starts to boggle the mind. When you consider the costs of analyzing all of Q's patents, it is almost a no brainer for a company to sign royalty agreements with Q.
I haven't posted on this board for a long time, but feel the need to get some stuff off my chest. For those of you that blame management for the failure to sign decent long term royalty agreements, I say you are wrong. Management is doing all they can to sign these agreements and to bring value to their investors.
Now ask yourselves why they can't get it done if that is true. There is only one answer possible and that is they don't have anything to sell at the price they are asking. The industry is not dumb. They know the strength of each others portfolios. Yeah there are personal IPR battles going on such as Apple/Samsung, etc. But, in the case of IDCC's portfolio, it is obvious that there is no respect for it. So, instead of blaming management, it is time to blame the ones who snowed people with the "Engine and Transmission" BS (I guess this is still blaming management). It is time for investors to really question the strength of the multitude of patents they toss around. Most of you (including myself) have no idea the worth of a patent. But those that have to pay for it have examined it in more depth than a colonoscopy. People ask how Qualcomm can but, IDCC can't. It all boils down to the worth of what somebody has for sell. This is supported by the agreements they have signed. Fixed fees agreements are only beneficial for the payer. Apple agreement a perfect example. The fact that these agreements were acceptable to IDCC says it all.
First of all in full disclosure--I have made more than a little money on this stock. Mostly because of a $5.00 cost basis. But, I am now out of it entirely. Doesn't mean I don't follow the board or the stock itself.
Jiff, you are correct. It was Bill Gates that signed an agreement with IBM to create an operating system. He went across town to a little company he knew called "Seattle Computer" and bought his operating system. It was called DOS, which at the the time stood for "Dumb Operating System". It was subsequently renamed "Disk Operating System" for obvious reasons. SJ and the Woz, created the Apple 2 all by themselves. However the Graphic Machine they built, called "LISA" and the "Macintosh" were developed from ideas shamelessly stolen from Xerox.
Nicmar, it is not an effort on any one shareholders part. It is simply a Law Firm advertising for potential clients. This happens every time there is a proposed buyout. For instance when Q bought Atheros, the next day about 7 different law firms announced an investigation. It is a legal scam.
Loop, first of all let me say that I am happy for all the long term shareholders to finally get some decent return. And, I am happy to share in that although to a lesser degree than most.
But, I would like to amplify on your statement "Nortel changed the playing field to the benefit of the inventors". Nortel didn't change a thing. What changed was Qualcomm's success in monetizing IPR. Followed by others trying to do the same and the courts/lawyers showing that if you don't have your own IPR, you will be basically shut out of doing business. It is now a given that if you don't have enough IPR to at least use it defensively you aren't going to have a seat at the table. The late comers (Apple, Google, HTC and a bunch of others) have recognized this and are doing everything they can to get enough IPR to stay in the game. Of course this puts IDCC in the cat birds seat and they made the right decision to shop their patents and they did it at the right time (on the heels of the Nortel bidding frenzy). Some others that have major untapped IPR that could be up for sale would be Motorola and Nokia. It will interesting to see how this all shakes out.
Again, Congrats to the LTBH investors who have struggled so much with this investment. My only concern now is how long the current euphoria will last. And when is the right time to capitalize on these gains.
Eric, it will certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out. How much rein will MS allow Nokia to play with the software, how much say MS will have in approving any major change in chipsets, how much they will allow other WP7 vendors to have the same freedom. Will Nokia play nicely with MS ?? I know Elop will, but will those in the trenches ?? It's one think to break open a few beer in Iceland, but that remoteness will not continue.
ST/Ericsson in only one of the many that will now be trying to bring the WP7 ecostructure a viable option to Q. There are many besides Intel that are annoyed by this decision. Fortunately, not Qualcomm.
Picking up on Apples slogan "There's an app for that", Q can now start up their own "There's a Pat. for that".
How in the world could anyone (including Q) keep track of your IPR and whether somebody is infringing or not. Maybe that is why Q doesn't have much problem licensing everybody. Cheaper to license the package and future Pats. than going to court or even trying to determine whether or not you infringe.
Data, this is what I posted on the SI board.
"Slacker, all I have to say is that is about frikkin time that somebody made one of these trolls think twice about filing suits just because they are looking for a settlement. If anybody really really has a case, then the judge would not have granted the bond. Extortion has got to end. Using the courts to delay paying royalties year after year has got to end. Either bring your case to trial and accept a judgment or go home. GAWD, this stuff pisses me off."
Ricardo, you really need to understand more about this subject, because you are absolutely wrong. What Q bought was a technology in development. Albeit a technology that had advanced to the point it may have a future and was protected by patents. The development team came along with the purchase and they continued to advance the product. Just because a prototype sample was displayed does not mean the product is ready for prime time. Mirasol will not be sellable until it is able to be manufactured in such as way as to meet demand. Demand will not occur until Q is able to obtain sufficient yields which allow it to be sold at competitive prices. Do not believe the hype of the media or message boards when making judgments about state of the art technologies.
I was intimately involved in the original development of active matrix TFT displays. I saw 17" TFT LCD Displays that blew my socks off 7 years before the market ever saw them. Apple Notebooks were the first to use these displays and they only used black and white.
Your belief that customers would flock to a product not in production is foolish.
Mirasol is right on track.
Ricardo, Q did not sit on Mirasol. It takes years to bring a new technology such as this to a state where it is manufacturable with yield factors that allow it to be priced to sell. They still are not quite there in terms of yield, but pretty close.
Samsung's screen is not a competitor to Mirasol. It is a beautiful screen, but Mirasol is all about low power and sunlight viewability. Kindle is not a competitor to Mirasol, it is a potential consumer.
For a very long time. You might not like it, but you are going to have to get used to it (or not).
Data, since when is packaging a desiccant into a MEM's device unique. WTF??
Ricardo, start reading here and the next 40 posts or so for your answer.
SI Board
This board is getting harder and harder to moderate. I don't know if I have the time for this. (gggg)
OT---Eric, I love the "Open" as they call it, but give me a frickin break---4:00 a.m. in the morning just pisses me off. Now I will have to watch the recap between 12 and 3. By the way, I shot a 76 last week and won by 1 and shot a 76 yesterday and lost by 2. I had him down going into the 16th hole and the 93° weather caught up with my 70 yr old body and up popped a double and a bogie over the last 2 holes. Guess I need one of those traveling work out trailers the pros have. (LOL)
Well Eric I somewhat disagree with you. Although you are correct that the original I-Phone was 2G tech and GSM, you have somewhat glossed over the fact that subsequent models incorporated WCDMA---which also by any definition incorporates Q's CDMA technology and there is no doubt that it is subject to royalties payable to Q. Apple may not be paying (and in all probability is not) but Foxconn surely is. Bottom line Q is profiting with I-Phone sales.
I agree with you that Jobs is not an A-Hole---he is a very smart man and a man with a vision and the ability to make it happen. He also has made an impact on my life and I am glad to know him.
Raymond, tonight I will be pouring Moonshine and Merlot just for you--you old poop. RIP
Cool----hope they are Mirasol.
DR, I haven't seen the patent wall at Q in some time. I imagine it has been reinforced many times over to hold up all these patents.
Ok, got to weigh in here. I am extremely disappointed in the markets reaction to Qualcomm. I blame the market and it's instant gratification mentality and I also blame Q. The reduction in guidance last quarter was a killer and short sighted. Q has for the past years invested a lot of money into seeding and growing the industry. It is now time to revisit that policy. The industry is now mature and is going to grow with or without Q. It is now time for Q to divest itself of non-revenue producing programs. It is now time to limit R&D to efforts that will create revenue and profits over the near future. And by near, I mean within a years timeframe. Mirasol is one worth keeping the effort going, but Firethorn and others should be sold. Q now needs to concentrate on reducing costs and taking advantage of the market the created.
I also agree with others that the tone of todays conference call was not good. Other than PJ trying to instill some confidence it was decidedly ho-hum. Almost like everybody was afraid to say something that resulted in last quarters fiasco.
I have come to the conclusion that Q is no longer the growth stock that we enjoyed a few years ago and we are now a mature stock that requires cost restraints and investments into short term revenue producing complementing companies. No longer necessary to invest in things that grow the industry. Wake up Q.
This is not to say Q is a loser. On the contrary, they are in the mold of the Intel's, IBM's and Microsoft's of the world. Not a bad thing, but also not the Q that we knew. The baby has grown up and needs to act like it.
Report TOU Violation Email This Page
Jim, I guess PJ and others were right when they said "Snapdragon" was being designed into 16 different products last year. Some have complained about it being late, but I don't see it that way. The decision of when to introduce a product is in the hands of the buyer----not Q. Snapdragon was ready for primetime, it just took the buyers a little longer than usual to take advantage of the capabilities.
I know exactly what will get us back to the $50 range. Me selling today.
Wow, this moderator job is easy on this board. Come on guys, give me something to moderate.
OK, well I guess that explains it.
Because, the man said I needed to make 4 recent posts in order to be the Moderator of this board.
Why are you trying to re-qualify ??
OK, need to requalify,
AAAHH !! Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
"There will be a Nokia Symbian phone this year with Snapdragon"
Raymond, my prayers are with you. Stay off that Merlot and White Lightening and things will turn around. Hoping the best for you "old poop".
Rich
It has been awhile since I chimed in on this board, but thought I would share my thoughts vis-a vie IDCC and Nok. First of all, the ITC decision, although disappointing, is not surprising. You cannot under estimate the legal resources that money can buy. I know that many have cautioned about the risks inherent in any legal arena, and they are right. An appeal may or may not change the decision. The odds are against it.
Now where does IDCC go from here? Mondays call will attempt to put a positive spin on it in order to settle the market, but it will not succeed. The only answer IMO is to lower your demands to a level that is acceptable to NOK and one that you can live with. This setback has at least the potential of rising to the disastrous Mot decision and at the extreme threatens their very existence. The only way to counteract that possibility is to get NOK to sign an agreement. I have no idea how this may effect other MFL agreements, but I am sure not in a good way.
I have been impressed with Merritt (compared to other previous leaders at IDCC), but he will have an enormous challenge ahead of him in trying to turn this defeat into something the market is enthused with.
At this point, I guess that agree with other posters who are recommending removing the "poison pill" and making the company a little more desirable for inclusion into a viable long term industry leader. I certainly don't see Qualcomm as a potential buyer (as others have mentioned) but there may be others who are interested in their IPR. The problem is that the value of that IPR has most certainly taken a major hit with the ITC decision. Yeah we can on with the Fed appeal, but that stands little chance of succeeding. So, the only thing we can do beyond that is to continue to pursue the legal system. And at what cost? Not only in terms of money---but time and time is money. I don't have that much time and I have probably talked my way out of this investment.
Ricardo, no need to comment about your post. You summed it up nicely and are right on. IMO.
Data, thanks for saving me the time and trouble to address this subject. I concur with your assessment and at the same time I understand investors angst. It is hard for some to see the benefits unless it directly effects the bottom line.
Good Post
Jiff, that may be your opinion but it is not based on reality. The standards committee does not accept patents into the standard. They care nothing about patents other than requiring those who think they have essential patents declare their wares. There are thousands of back and forths and inputs into solving a particular problem most of which have nothing at all to do with any patent. This board has put a lot of emphasis on so called "contributions accepted". Well these contributions may or may not have anything at all to do with a patent and in fact the very vast majority do not.
Bottom line is that it is up to each individual company to declare whether or not they "think" they may have patents that are either essential or more importantly "potentially essential" to a standard. It is up to that particular company to convince others that they are right in their declaration and if at arms length the other company agrees then an agreement is reached. If a company does not agree with a companies declaration then it is up to the declarer to prove in a court of law that they are in fact accurate. The standard committee has nothing at all to do with this process.
The very fact that a company declares they have X amount of essential patents is only that companies opinion. Some may agree and many may disagree.
I think it has been shown that a very large percentage of the declared essential patents are in fact, not true. It is much like throwing a lot of BS at the wall and hoping some may stick.
Mindy, start here and read the next 8 posts.
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25941720
Gregorio, this is the first I have hard of the lawsuit. I read the pleadings and at first blush I don't see much concern for Q. With the exception of, it is an event that requires additional legal expenses. Seems to be the order of the day in the technology world. Sue anybody and everybody as often as you can and the settlement money to make you go away will more than pay for the effort. I have no feelings for the accuracy of Gabriel's claims, but it sure sound like it is late coming and convoluting.
Sounds like something Jeffery and other lawyer could expound on more than I can.
Rich
P.S.-- I will bring it to the SI board for their attention.
GSM is TOAST.
New CDMA subscribers now account for 32% of all new subscribers in China.
Data, I read half of the report and then gave up, because they said "there would be no math". Interesting that this report was issued 3 months prior to Nokia and Q agreeing to a new 15 year agreement.
Todays chart looks like an electrocardiogram.
Revlis, for the life of me I don't know where you get some your conclusions. There is no way that a standard body accepts a patent into a standard. They may accept an idea submitted by somebody and that idea may or may not be a covered by a patent. But the body itself knows nothing nothing at all about patents. All they care about is whether the idea submitted solves a particular problem.