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.
It also explains something clearly to Nokia and Samsung - the two of them together could never put us on our last Nickel. They will come to the table in due time and pony up.
One thing I have to appreciate that nobody else seems to is that IDCC in the announcement of it's various licensees has been broadening the scope of it's revenue stream outside of just cellphones into the PC, PDA, and even gaming devices showing already that it will prosper from the upcoming convergence of technology standards. It is truly not all about Nokia.
It has also been great to see alot of those companies that are signing with IDCC blowing away the competition.
Only downside on that front is that we have entered into fixed rate contracts with some of those companies (such as Apple, and likely for the most part LG, so IMO we tend to limit our upside that way.
I hope to see more per-unit types of licensing in the future, and I am happy to see fout licensing covering a very broad base of products, and we have done well to win licensees outside of the cellphone arena.
This very topic was voted on last weekend - you lost hands-down despite your 9 votes to everyone elses 1.
The answer you are wanting to hear is for MGT. to settle for pennies on the dollar instead of finishing the fight for what's due them and the shareholders (it's unlikely you are a member of either group). The lie you are bringing to the board is that our legal team is three steps behind. They are not, and Nokia is fighting tooth and nail to keep from coming before the ITC to face an injunction of their products. Nokia will be changing their tune - let it play out and it will be on good terms. You are a shill for Nokia - that's all.
While in the past I was a strong proponent of going after more legal actions, I personally am extremely happy with the ITC venu and feel if things go our way it will be the fastest track to getting paid.
I am sure there is a percentage of folks on this board that would prefer that IDCC pursue multiple legal fronts to show that we mean business versus the share buybacks.
IMO if you put it to a vote those in favor of more legal actions would turn out to be the minority - it would be a good voting topic because the topic has been beaten to death on the board already.
It would seem the smaller players would be more inclined to pursue a settlement if faced with legal action, so I do not see why they could not use it as a tool, coordinated with an effort from the licensing team to license groups of smaller players.
It's no different than a sales department - you have to beat the bushes, track, and keep up your contacts and campaigns to produce results. It is easy to be critical when you do not have any visibility to those efforts and we must assume that's what our licensing department is doing. We do have some surprising results to indicate they are doing their job.
Would pursuit of legal action against smaller players really have other smaller players falling in line versus a victory against the big players that definitely would?
Would victory by settlement against some of the smaller players yield more attractive rates to lend support for a higher FRAND rate argument against the big players?
Does taking on only the big players that are going to fight for the lowest rate limit our upside if that strategy yields a lower FRAND rate received from everyone else?
I can't answer any these questions.
Sorry IQ, Tks Mshcher for the correction
Jimlur - be sure to read lastchoice synopsis of the filing for the commission to review the ALJ
As for me, I think volume discounts is the kind of thing that results from Arbitration (as happened to us) where they constantly split the baby. If we are taking this to court I think we should not play that game, or if so, only within parameters that is acceptable for IDCC having the forethought of China in mind.
No need to screw the pooch for China over concessions made with a thief like Nokia. Rather - don't make the concessions and let them see it our way, or have the courts decide.
Wanda002 - Great Post! It doesn't bother me in the least that they have not executed on the buyback - I would rather them have the cash to stay the course and take this all the way. If we don't have the goods - let the courts decide. Whay good is a war chest of thousands of patents if we settle for pennies on the dollar of their value.
Be conservative, and hold their cash to fight this fight. If we win the way we should win - no one will be caring about a buyback or reducing the float.
Thanks for setting me straight on this, Revlis!
Revlis, isn't this the patent that we thought the Staff was recommending to take out by summary determination? If so, this would be a surprising win for us, putting everything we have asserted surviving into the trial.
I'm do not follow the details nearly as closely as you, so if I am wrong please correct.
Romulus, quit saying US, as if you are one of us longs - you are not, you are short and are just spewing your crap all over this board. You would like IDCC to throw away their cash because they can use it to withstand this battle to the very end - to the point where Nokia and Sammy have no more slimy rocks to hide under, and neither will you. You are a punk!
J70k, nice to hear this positive outlook, and I'm not fretting this lull much either because it's almost over. The stonewalling gained in this action is small if things go our way, and the ALJ has to keep us from being prejudiced too.
I think Nokia's original action taking this to CCA2, and then their attempt to use that to impede IDCC's progress with Samsung goes entirely against Judge Batt's intent and specific clarification that Samsung was not before her - it was only about Nokia. Nokia went too far, and the ITC has to keep us from being prejudiced too.
They are their own worst enemy and stepped over the line at least once, but more likely twice. It's bad enough they pursued another jurisdiction, and once granted they used it to step over the line again to impede progress against Samsung. I hope it comes back down on them hard.
Mainlefty & Wanda002, just a week or so back there was a post where an individual is suing Qualcomm for the exhorbitant licensing fees they claim are being passed through and responsible for the hefty price of their cellphone. The individual is asking for 5 Million in compensation.
It seems reasonable that an individual could sue Nokia for lost investment returns, that is not only robbing us from collecting on "our(s) as shareholders" just returnss, but also holding up licensing across the board and promoting the practice of open IPR theft among the manufacturers. I actually think this case would be much less frivolous, and if a short-list of those investors who have passed away while waiting over the last year would be quite a compelling piece of evidence and if nothing else might garner a little bit of deserved respect.
I liked Wanda's idea - it is at least a fresh idea - don't underestimate the value of a new poster folks...maybe he/she's onto something.
Next two steps:
1) Mschere to ask me where I saw that post
2) Me to ask for Olddog967 to bail me out!
Maybe shareholder's could initiate the RICO suit based on the the sleuth findings that Olddog finds...then Mschere can connect all the dots, ha
To Mschere-Thanks Oldog967-you remind me of the nose on my Treeing Walker You are unmatched in your abilities-Thank You!!!
Mschere - I'll find the cite...it was brought to the board. Unless OldDog gets there first. I have limited time today but I'll show you the reference. Thanks for your patience.
It seems obvious from the QCOM newswire that Nokia has made substantial progress by at least getting within field goal distance toward resolution of their legal battles with both QCOM and IDCC. To me, it further lends credibility to what IDCC communicated instead through an 8K.
I further think the timeframe communicated by QCOM (but IDCC communicated no timeframe) says that without continuing to apply pressure on the legal front there will be no near-term resolution.
For IDCC, that pressure doesn't have to be the delayed ITC hearings, as Nokia I'm sure would like to put an end to the challenges against their patents in the UK, which was a required response to their attack on the essentiality of our own.
I was surprised to read related to the UK cases the judge still has to say whether or not this case can go forward challenging Nokia's patent essentiality, when it was Nokia that has already set the legal precedent and we publicly filed it as a cross-action related to their own actions. It seems that for a judge to not allow it to go forward would be denying an equal and opposite legal action that was already granted to Nokia. I don't see how this could even be in question? Any thoughts by the legal eagles?
P.S. It sounds like they are rolling in so much money that they put you on their payroll too.... Please give it a break.
Romulus, I hesitantly reply to you because I'll draw out yet another post with your "this isn't working" mantra
You are making a mountain out of a molehill, creating an emergency where there is not one, and Nokia's recent lucky break is but one skirmish in a larger war that we are fairing quite well in...lighten up - it's not so bad as you say.
By the way - IDCCs action of taking their complaint to the ITC - IS A NEW APPROACH, AND A FAST ONE COMPARATIVE TO ANY OTHER VENU AND WITH HIGH STAKES CONSEQUENCES FOR SAMSUNG AND NOKIA!!!! NEITHER OF THEM WANT TO GO BEFORE THE ITC AND IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS TO ALL.
You are saying this isn't working, I say it's working just fine. IF IDCC wants to open up some new fronts to fire salvo's at Nokia fine, but announcing another buyback is not really a fresh idea.
If you ask me, the stallion Nokia is just trying to buck it's way out of a line where they know they will be gelded at the end of it. If they cannot buck out of line, they will put the horse they chose to go through the line with in front of them so they are the very last one to lose their balls. It's all about Nokia...bla bla bla they are all about themselves.
I wonder what kind of BS they fed to their competitor Samsung...
Yes, it was a simple agreement. You shut-up (Samsung), I'll talk and call all the shots (Nokia). I wonder how much Samsung really gained by the consolidation? A little more time will tell.
It reads like Samsung's opposition was written by Nokia. So I guess that means Samsung is still shell-shocked that Nokia is putting the screws to them and is probably speechless, as Nokia writes their replies and is coaching them to take one for the team!.
Gio, great news. On the edge of my seat regarding the direction things will go now. Point and counter-point has been made about whether the judge will split this or not. Glad to see the schedule came out today, so we may hear something tomorrow and who knows, maybe taking Samsung straight to the matt. In the big picture, the schedule seems pretty near-term to me. I can't see where the legal team is gonna lose too much traction over this schedule.
It will get really interesting if they split this and proceed against Samsung concurrently at the ITC.
btw, I am surprised you beat DMILLER in predicting low teens. He surely will not disagree with you because it might be mistaken for optimism
I'll accept that as good advice. I have seen some of IDCCs legal resolutions occur in the past where I though folks were in the know and acting on it prior to, and others where I feel it was kept completely under wraps till the announcement came. Some of that is obviously going to be determined by your opponent, and I don't trust our current ones, so I believe it is good advice.
You may be right on all of that regarding the manipulation and master plan of a suitor for IDCC, but they are in a strong cash position, and some of our licensees are performing very well so there could be upside surprises. Along with that, the new slimchip customer, and the fact that management stated they would have to keep a lid on some of the behind-the-scenes progress regarding the product side.
I think there are some possible upside surprises in 2008, and on any of them the shorts could quickly loose their grip and run for cover.
Here's to hoping you are wrong. ITC resolution with either Samsung or Nokia is going to break the backs of ALL the shorts, and if it stays on a near-term schedule I think it's folks taking their positions, and betting on further delay as can often be counted on with litigation.
I think because Nokia is an industry giant, and is still running w/a lucky break by hook or crook, alot of money is going to bet on Nokia making the most of this delay and chips are now placed by the shorts. As for Samsung - we may have a date certain schedule rolling forward with the ITC as early as next week that will put Nokia back in their own corner.
With IDCC also having IPR strength in the upcomming 802.21 standards, and being one of the unique strength plays in TD-SCDMA, I don't see all the doom and gloom - these two arenas will deliver surprises on the licensing side, IMO.
Anytime there could as easily be a surprise announcement of a Microsoft, Cisco, TXN, or Intel tie-up that will knock the ceiling off this stock. I hope we are not bought out, and get to witness the upside. Now those surprises could come on the licensing or the product side, or both.
In the big picture we are actually a forerunner in the race to prove out our IPR licensing strength for 3G. With both us and QCOM fighting the fight, and UK decisions coming down on our side, so to Nokia's dismay we are not going away and have no need to back down.
Thanks Whiz, you answered my question and I posted before reading this.
So in IDCC arguing that the CCA was wrong in not reveiwing and giving weight to the findings of the ALJ, if that is agreed upon then this doctrine of laches has already been presented in addition to collateral estoppel and could still be used as a basis to deny Nokia arbitration.
I hope I am correct on this point.
Gator, Great counterpoint as Loops was. I also am long this stock on nobody doubts it on this thread. I go through my emotional highs and lows as everybody else on this rollercoaster. I can't wait to see it turn into a rocket. I am certainly swayed by your point of view and am glad that you posted - glad that I stepped out of line just enough to draw you out of the lurking for your valid points. No harm intended.
Loophole, thank you for adding a counter-balance to my post that outweighs what I laid onto the scale. Sincerely. Thank You!
Better yet, how about stock options! That would actually put the lawyers on a time schedule A great idea - I vote yes for that.
The other thing you want to be able to maintain is anger from the ITC on the injustices going on with the verdicts coming down, but the anger and compassion will be less if it's based on our own laxity or poor representation.
Of course, I am a layman in these matters, so I defer to you and a bottle of Maalox if I was a lawyer, because I probably notice only a fraction of the things that you might feel are mistakes made along the way.
Even a good legal team is going to make them, but certainly a couple of comments like is hard to ingnore - and perhaps shouldn't be ignored by our chief legal counsel internally.
Loop, once again, the reply from 2 CCA really put the blame on IDCC for denying the stay. And based on this comment how material to you feel this miss is on the part of our own legal team...when it was a key determinant in granting a stay?
I certainly feel dissappointed with the CCAs decision, but it's difficult for the dissapointment to end there when in their response they say we laid down on the job in putting forward there would be only moderate irreparable harm.
How does our legal team bounce back from something like that, and what course of actions should be going on internally at IDCC when the court comes back with findings pointing back on us as the reason for the denial?
Revlis, this hits the nail on the head that makes you wonder if we lost simply because our lawyers did not see fit to prepare and put up a case for irreparable harm. That's not vigorously enforcing our IP if they did not step up to bat and shout about all these things.
To me, if that's all that was put forward we need to consider the quality of our legal team, and that it was the very basis for which we could have won with the CCA.
I have never seen this type of comment before about our own representation, almost explaining our loss as being our own fault by not seeing fit to state a case for irreparable harm.
This should not be overlooked internally by IDCC, and they need bring in some new guns with a reply like this coming forward.
And with the additional free options,shares, and RSUs given Harry over the years there would be a national chain of Harry's Cleaners on almost every streetcorner! Now that's a lost opportunity!
I don't give Nokia any credit whatsoever for seeing all or any of this in a crystal ball - they were throwing spaghetti and a noodle stuck. No more brains or forethought than that. No master plan but delay as much as we can. It had no form to it, and they are still making it up and running with it as they go along.
I'm still not sure as they do go along that this isn't just showing everyone their colors and it could come back to bite them. They are now taking a questionable win, and slinging mud before the ITC, now using it to interfere with Samsung based on "their positon" which I think is conteptable.
In my opinion they are just pissing off both the panel and the ALJ, so that if, and when they come back into their fold they are about as good as burnt toast.
Since the judge went against the panel in consolidating the case, their behavior wins further support for IDCC from the panel, and just rubs the judge Luckern the wrong way because they are making a mockery of his court and jurisdiction, and making his earlier decision, that was an appeasement to Nokia to spare them any prejudice that was a stretch anyway, appear in retrospect to be a foolish decision because they are now stomping all over him and his court.
Nicmar and Jimlur - you folks ok from the earthquake. I thought both of you lived over in God's country...
~ Wayne
Can Nokia be held in comtempt for interrupting, and impeding the legal matters pursuant to furthering the Samsung procedings. In my opinion, they should be charged with contempt for their actions.
I agree that if time is the only factor, we should give on that to get back to Delaware and have a shot better shot at a fair trial. It's hard not to feel like something smells rotten in Judge Batt's actions. If the CCA panel doesn't straighten it out, then I would be doing everything possible to get back to Delaware, where this should be defendable as teh appropriate jurisdiction for Nokia to present this as an affirmative defense in the first place.
The legal team for IDCC (unfortunate as it may be) may not even be aware of the defense. I wish Jimlur would forward some key e-mails on to the company - carrying the weight that he does it might put a joker back in IDCCs hand.
I'm in Silex, Missouri an hour NW of St. Louis. I was already working at my desk when I felt a sudden air pressure change in the room that sounded off all the windows and frames were creeking. I saw a tree stirring out the window from the porchlight, and since a front has been moving in with clouds but still warm, I ran outside thinking it was a tornado. But then everything got calm again. Realized at the coffee shop later it was an earthquake.