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.
Revlis, I took the "certain future phones" to be a limiting phrase, perhaps limiting this licence to 2G or 2G & 2.5G, and specifically omitting 3G for future licensing terms. It allows Apple to carry on now, while the details of a 3G agreement are worked out. It's wide open for interpretation, so I don't think you can take it to mean 3G with a high level of confidence. JMHO
~ Wayne
Learningtovest you nailed a very important point. Excellent post.
Loop, I agree with all of what you say about being fed up, but would like to make the point that the practice of over-declaring claims as being common would have been a one-sided claim, made only by IDCC had they not countered with their similar claim, and Nokia would have been all over it. With IDCCs counter-claim their true colors are revealed.
And after us taking this up with the ITC and in the public eye for N75, if they introduce this without a license it will not only be infringement, but it will be willful infringement taking place in the public eye. This beats the tar out of sending some legal letter to the company putting them on notice they are infringing because now everyone else knows it too. Including AT&T!
my3sons87: Looks like a really good reason to me.
Laranger, I drilled into because it shows up fresh today in my ticker news listings on Yahoo, presented at 7:00 a.m. titled: News you need Tuesday Morning April 14th. Ha - and It's Tuesday morning August 14th. I have no explanation for it.
I'm just glad to see them presented as a strong company these days in the news. In the Black Boxes Gone Wild they are once of the good company stocks that traded down for no reason, and now used by The Street as the pick to represent a top takeover target, and mentioned as a company that has patents in every cellphone device made. Now all we need is some more good news and the licensing side - a little respect from the judicial system that should be upholding our patent rights and confirming our arbitration awards would be nice.
Re: I thought about that too after I posted, they may have used a different valuation measurement and I just through something out there to share the link...sorry.
Plugging for someone who will be listing 10 top takeover targest, the newsclip highlighted only InterDigital Communications as a top takeover target, mentioning an easy Scenario for QCOM to "swoop down" and takeover InterDigital for 9 or 10 times earnings.
http://videoplayer.thestreet.com/?clipId=1373_10374101&channel=Market+Updates&cm_ven=YAHOO&a...
Eric, thanks for your high-quality reply and for not taking me to task for being paranoid as it relates to Samsung's newest accusations with the ITC.
Regards, Wayne
In this post you have the curiosity that a wolf in sheeps clothing would posess (Not an accusation). All the lawyers and historians on this site are the greatest thing, and in some scenarios they could be also be less than helpful to their own investment by sleuthing for knowledge that is contrary to the interests of their own investment.
Not that I think IDCC is hiding anything, and I haven't a clue about anything this far back in the common heritage of IDCC and QCOM, but I hate to see the boards braintrust freely doing work for Samsung or Nokia's lawyers on the Interdigital board. It's already known they monitor it, and even have used postings from this board in legal filings.
I do not mean to imply there is any ill intent in your questioning, ERIC, but it seems like a line of questioning or research that would be asked or performed by one of Samsung's or Nokia's lawyers, and I notice NOKIA as one of your favorite investments.
You are obviously very knowledgable, and a skilled sleuth like Oldog - as well as a long-time poster on this board, so I do not mean this as an insult or accusation - those are great questions - I just hate to see research that might only benefit Samsung or Nokia performed freely by those who who are long on IDCC.
Why dig so hard for avenues, or new avenues of support for Samsung's hopefully baseless assertions in concluding a QCOM license is sufficient for their products, or that Interdigital, is bound now through an earlier ETSI membership to not be paid justly for the patents they own?
QCOM just announced expanded x-lic agrmnt w/Nortel
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070315/lath080.html?.v=91
Great post, Eric, and thanks for bringing me up-to-date. It is also encouraging news.
Still a tough call to me. I would be fine with them filing an infringement lawsuit if they would tell me about it in advance so I could get to the sidelines and buy back in cheap. That's the basic risk taken. I would simply like to see IDCC and QCOM tackle this FRAND crap to their advantage, and in absolute fairness to the IPR holders, not a group of operators consorting together to define the law on their own, riding on the coattails of Nokia's arrogance. I would like to see them taken down a few pegs - as it's well deserved.
From Nokia 20-F - This lawsuit, and outcome will have the biggest impact on IDCC and Qualcomm going forward, as Nokia attempts to impose their "self-declared" limit to total FRAND royalties to a cap of 5 percent. What gets me is that they pulled this percentage out of their BUT ts, taking it down from about thirty percent in total for GSM - who in their right minds thinks that this amount is what defines FRAND? - and when lawsuits are still settling for individual companies over just one or a few patents at the 5.5 percent level. There is no basis whatsoever for such a low royalty cap, and the only people who throw it around are industry consultants paid to spew this kind of crap.
In August 2006, Nokia initiated an action in Delaware Chancery Court seeking a declaration that
Qualcomm had breached its licensing obligations concerning declared essential GSM/GPRS/EDGE and
WCDMA patents by failing to offer fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory
(‘‘FRAND’’) terms and
asked the Court to declare that injunctions are unavailable for patents that Qualcomm has voluntarily
declared essential to the ETSI standard setting organization. Nokia has also asked the Delaware Court
to enjoin Qualcomm from requesting injunctive relief in the actions Qualcomm has filed outside the
United States involving patents it voluntarily declared essential to ETSI. In addition, Nokia has
requested the Court to specify the proper framework for determining the FRAND terms and to order
specific performance requiring Qualcomm to negotiate in good faith based on the FRAND framework
as determined by the Court. Qualcomm has moved to dismiss this action on multiple bases, which
Nokia has refuted, and the parties are currently waiting for the Court to issue its ruling. Trial is
scheduled for July or August 2007. Nokia will continue to vigorously defend its rights in this action.
112
Re: Revlis,
Same terms but they got their money sooner. A bird in the had is better than two in the bush. And it's past - they can now go for round two.
I don't see how anyone can do anything beyond speculation as to which was the better deal? Even with hindsight - it's still not clear.
Not OT: And not whining or even wanting it to be a topic (i'm lurking), just an example that shareholder's DO count, and DO have an ownership interest in a company and CAN make a difference in matters of excess that is dilutive, or not in the interest of shareholder value.
For IDCC, of course, options abuse and RSUs would be the topic of interest, but EXIT packages may apply as well.
Quote of the Day...on silver lining..."At least the shareholders spoke up"
Is this year to burst CEO pay balloon? By ELLEN SIMON, AP Business Writer
Fri Feb 9, 6:47 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_bi_ge/executive_pay_solutions
NEW YORK - Will Robert Nardelli and Henry A. McKinnell do for executive pay what Enron Corp. did for corporate governance? Just as Enron Corp.'s meltdown led to tougher corporate governance regulations, the eye-popping packages those executives received when they exited CEO jobs at Home Depot and Pfizer have caused everyone from President Bush to professional compensation consultants to suggest runaway pay needs to be reined in.
ADVERTISEMENT
The topic is shaping up to be the No. 1 issue at this year's annual meetings of public companies.
Investor activists are buzzing about potential solutions, including shareholder advisory votes on executive pay packages and the end to provisions that give executives huge windfalls when companies are sold. And a handful of companies have shown a new willingness to talk to advocates about pay changes.
"There's a sort of silver lining to the whole Nardelli, Home Depot thing," said Chicago-based compensation consultant Donald Delves. "At least the shareholders finally spoke up."
Nardelli left Home Depot Inc. in January after months of shareholder complaints about his pay and the lagging performance of the company's stock versus home improvement competitor Lowe's Cos. And McKinnell's exit from Pfizer Inc. in July came 19 months earlier than expected in part due to growing shareholder anger about what had been disclosed about his lucrative retirement package.
But the true shock came when the details later emerged about just how large their severance deals were: Nardelli's was valued at about $210 million and McKinnell's came to almost $200 million, according to company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The packages were enough to warrant attention from Bush, who said in a speech on Wall Street last month that corporate board members must step up to their responsibilities. "You need to pay attention to the executive compensation packages that you approve," he said.
Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is expected to introduce legislation on the issue. Frank said in a January speech at the National Press Club that high CEO pay is "not just a matter of envy. It has reached a point where it has some macroeconomic significance."
Frank pointed to research done by Harvard professor Lucian Bebchuk showing that compensation of the top five officers at the country's public companies between 1993 and 2002 totaled about $250 billion — nearly 10 percent of aggregate profits. CEO pay grew by a median 11.29 percent in 2005, according to The Corporate Library, which tracks governance, compensation and performance.
Bebchuk, co-author of the book "Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation," has become a frequently-cited source for information in proxy pay proposals. He's also started filing proposals himself on director pay at companies including Walt Disney Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has submitted "say on pay" proposals, asking for a nonbinding yes-or-no shareholder vote on pay packages at companies including Citigroup Inc., Wachovia Corp., Ingersoll-Rand Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. and Countrywide Financial Corp.
"I think it's a rare board that's going to ignore it's owners," said Timothy Smith, director of socially responsive investment at Walden Asset Management, which manages about $1.5 billion.
About 10 companies, including Pfizer, Intel Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Schering-Plough Corp., American International Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Colgate-Palmolive have formed a working group with AFSCME and Walden to discuss shareholder approval of pay packages. They met Friday at the offices of TIAA-CREF, which manages $406 billion.
Such a system, used in the United Kingdom, would not give shareholders a vote on pay. But it would allow them to bring nonbinding confidence or no-confidence vote on reported executive pay, letting shareholders either ratify or say no to the pay package an executive has already received.
"Only a handful" of pay packages in the UK have not been approved by shareholders, said Jeffrey N. Gordon, a law professor at Columbia University at a Thursday presentation to the New York Society of Security Analysts. One package that wasn't approved was from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, where shareholders were particularly upset about a "golden parachute" package for the CEO.
"In response to shareholder pressure, it was cut by two-thirds," Gordon said.
Other solutions are coming from companies themselves. While Ben & Jerry's is the best known example of a company where executive pay is a multiple of employee pay, DuPont Co. has used the same standard for the last decade, with the target cash compensation for the CEO set at about twice that of an executive vice president. The company also pays modest bonuses, considering its size.
The practice started under CEO Edgar S. Woolard, who retired in 1995. In a video message posted online, he pleaded with executives to ratchet down pay as a way to restore public trust in corporate leaders. He argued against what he calls the "myths" used to justify high CEO pay, including the idea that CEO pay is driven by competition.
"To that, I say, 'Bull,'" he said. "CEO pay is driven by the outside consultant surveys and the fact that your CEO in your company has to be at least in the top half and maybe in the top quartile."
DuPont did not make Woolard available for interviews.
More than anything, this is an issue for corporate boards, said John C. Wilcox, senior vice president and head of corporate governance at TIAA-CREF. "We don't want to micromanage the internal decisions of the company's management."
One reason Home Depot's Nardelli got the rich pay package he did was because his hiring was a "hail Mary pass" by a company that was in "dire straits," said Ken Bertsch, executive director and head of corporate governance at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, at an event Monday hosted by Institutional Shareholder Services.
By contrast, companies that grow their own talent avoid the CEO star search — and the major league pay that comes with it. Michael L. Eskew, CEO of United Parcel Service Inc., has been with the company since he graduated from Purdue University's industrial engineering program in 1972. He earned about $2.5 million in 2005, outside options — and the 33,993 shares underlying his options aren't staggering.
As boards set goals for pay, they need to look harder at performance data.
"This is pretty simple stuff," said Delves. "If you want pay at the 75th percentile, you better have performance in the 75th percentile. It's not hard to figure out."
On the Net: For Woolard's video message: http://www.compensationstandards.com/nonmember/EdWoolard_video.asp
OT: Direction to TC rumor board
I believe TeeCee had created a rumor board to discuss rumors on stocks. I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to pass along the link?
I'm long IDCC, and sorry to bother folks w/this inquiry.
OT: Direction to TC rumor board
I believe TeeCee had created a rumor board to discuss rumors on stocks. I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to pass along the link?
I'm long IDCC, and sorry to bother folks w/this inquiry.
You used to be required to have a salary under a certain threshold in a given year to make the conversion from traditional to Roth, atone time it was 95,000 for an individual and has been gradually rising I think to around 110,000, and that may be on Adjusted Gross Income (sorry I would have to research a bit for the details).
I heard that recently, the Rich folks were given a HUGE tax break that will cost our country Billions of dollars in the a growing pot of defferred revenue (all the combined traditional IRA's owned by the wealthy), by eliminating that salary restriction for a one time shot over I believe the next five years to provide them an opportunity to convert all of their traditional IRAs over to a tax free ROTH account simply by paying their snapshot tax hit now instead of later (post growth). Those opposed to the bill it was tacked onto say that congress pissed away billions of future tax revenues for the short term influx of tax revenue it will create over the next five years.
I am sure many of the accountants could elaborate in much more detail, and sorry for not being to provide that level of detail
Catchnrel - Good Post! EOM
Re: Active members dissappearing
I bet most are still watching closely. While I had to take much of my dollars to the sidelines defensively a couple several months ago because of a heavy weighting in this stock percentage-wise (of my small potato sack).
I thought that no 3G agreement by now might send our share price sharply down. With this news, I shuffled some right back in, even though it may not be a financial material event for the company. This news in combination with the amazing growth in institutional ownership talked me back into placing IDCC as my largest equity holding.
My thoughts are that the institutional ownership is proof positive that IDCC is finally getting respect on the street, and along with that there is a decreasing opportunity for the shareprice to be manipulated, and a decreasing number of market participants that would benefit by slamming IDCC.
I don't want to miss the ride, because with IDCC's strong balance sheet, a couple more pleasant surprises like this and we are off to the races. I hope all those that have been waiting so long for this company to succeed are taking note that the paid money managers are buying in, and they are doing so because they feel IDCC is positioned very stongly in the wireless sector, and is going to make them money. At no time in IDCCs history that I am aware of, have we met this milestone.
Since the 50 percent institutional ownership that for so long was just a long-shot off in the distance is now a reality, I will replace that thought similarly with that of a license agreement in the Chinese market - the next unbelievable event that could eventually happen. It's nice to know that it's a publicly stated priority acknowledged by IDCC as well.
I try to look at it optimistically that while China postures TD-SCDMA as their home-grown standard, electing IDCC as a founding member in the related TD-SCDMA forum promoting this technology was an early nod that it is not ALL homegrown.
From an international perspective, if China is considering going up against the likes of Qualcomm challenging rates, wouldn't it be better to have determined a fair and reasonable rate with someone that does have foundational patents in that space, than to go in to such a dispute still paying noone anything at all - in essence, honoring no intellectual property rights whatsoever. I don't think that China can remain in that position indefinitely on the international stage and so I hope that IDCC is in the right place, at the right price, at the right time for a phenomenal watershed event recognized as the company that has proven it has the goods.
OT: Don't we pay HC that much to leave every year?
DD, I am very positive about IDCCs long term prospects, but your recurring revenue question and the timing of it has me really worried for the short term.
Like too many others, I have followed the Mark Twain school of investing, by putting all my eggs in one basket, and watching the basket closely. Today, I sold half my position because expectations were communicated there would be additional 3G licences signed in 2006, and since Samsung is still using the Nokia playbook, the two companies will be into late November just in filing replies.
I am worried that one or two things will take our stock down in the short run - Wall Street punishment for not meeting expectations that management set (such as what happened to XMSR)- if we do not sign new 3G licensees, that is - and secondly, form-4s from insider selling because management has a tendency to get out at the top.
I decided to step to the sidelines and miss a little upside. If I was more diversified in my investing it might be a different story, but I lightened up today to lock in some profit and diversify a bit. And now that I have, this rocket will probably fly to the moon...
Hasn't Nokia already taken the pre-emptive step in a venue that is less patent-rights friendly than the US? That would indicate to me that sufficient notice has been given to begin to accrue starting from the earlier date mentioned where IDCC declared they would not charge them. It seems beyond that, their liability should be accruing daily. Do you feel this is the case, or not? Your opinion is certainly appreciated. Thanks for all the things you sleuth for on the board!
Olddog967, Notice doesn't necessarily have to be initiation of a lawsuit does it? Wouldn't a certified or registered letter giving notice of their infingment, even prior to this agreement not to sue them over it until a specified day still be considered legal notice of infringement.
For instance, if Nokia basically asked that resolution over their rate disagreement with Qualcomm to have progressed to a specified point, or resolved, that does not say they deny, or have not been given legal notice of infringement, it just says that such legal notice has not yet been acted upon to the exent of filing a lawsuit.
Anyone trashing this stock today is doing so two-faced as they load up their own wagons on the cheap...
I have been hanging in there with the rest of the gang for for a long time now, and I can finally say that in my own opinion if IDCC announced they were taking a vote forward to authorize enough shares so support a 2 for 1 split, I would vote for it and feel at this point it is finally something that might for once be in the best interest of everyone, and it would be a forward-looking message regarding the future demand for holding this stock.
tight lines to Malko - you will be in my prayers.
Olddog967, when they announced the settlement, isn't that date representing the grace period that forgave Noka for infringement only up until the settlement date, and their butts were hanging in the wind beginning on the next day.
As I recall the announcement, IDCC can already file an infringement action against them. Sorry for being too lazy to go find the announcement...
Good One, Habu LOL
Badgerkid: I'm getting married on June 24th. I own two crockpots and have not even looked out on the BBBynd registry to see what all my fiance' decided she wants. I'm getting everything I asked for at the wedding so I don't think I'm even going to look.
Spencer: I'm speculating, and that genius Olddog can quickly clear this up, but I believe the company bylaws set a limit to the overall outstanding shares - say 100 million. And to increase that number by making a change to the bylaws would take a shareholder vote (which could only be nixed in a vote due to painful memory of managements historical propensity to line their pockets w/shares at the dilution of all shareholder,s interests (i.e. stock compensation program), creating predictible fluries of form 4 insider stock sale disclosures anytime the stock increases (today does not qualify - a non-event)).
However, if a share repurchase program would allow us to get under the threshold to multiply the existing outstanding shares by 2 while still staying within the overall authorized shares allowed in the by-laws, then a 2 for 1 split could be announced, pending shareholder approval, without the need to have the overall number of authorized shares increased in our bylaws(a dilutionary event also subject to shareholder vote, but perhaps w/less chance of approval at this time).
Does any of that make sense? I, for one, hope they are positioning for a stock split.
You are forgetting that Nokia is the only company that funded our TDMA development, and only Samsung claimed to be tied to the same boat, and the tow rope was cut today.
Tomorrow is a new day, and tomorrow Nokia can be sued for infringement of our 3G patents.
No other company is an apples to apples comparison to what occured today regarding 3G. And I'm still not clear on whether they have forgiven royalties, or whether they have simply agreed not to litigate for infringement before this date.
Who knows - maybe before the market opens tommorrow a 3G license agreement will be made and announced so that IDCC does not file an infringement lawsuit against them.
I was somewhat impressed with the timeline with which we will receive our money - Right Now. That at least provides on thing noone can dish IDCC for over.
Say, has anyone checked w/the pizza delivery man yet?
Am I counting on this to happen - no
Am I hoping it will happen just this way - yes
If it happens, should the stock trading be stopped. Yes, solely in order for us all to count our money, and roll around in it...
I'm really glad they did not come out with a release stating that "we believe based on this settlement that Samsung is obligated to pay x amount..."
Speak softly and carry a big hockey stick
Samsung is probably evaluating what hit them at this very moment. Moral of the story: By riding the coat tails of Nokia, one will get esPOO all over you...
My brother called me w/the news about a half hour ago. Read the release and then Loopholes highly respected comments, then jumped for joy!!!
Congrats to all.
Hope the rest of the 3G negotiations proceed in good faith, and I bet we see some other companies start signing on the line throughout 2006.
Re: Toxic = Top six - Well I'm feeling pretty imaginative now - thanks for the correction! See how that Mot debacle still weighs - A license with them would sure be a welcome
sign of success.
MOT sure would, I thought that was behind UB's use of the word toxic to describe potential upcoming agreements at the last conference call - purely my speculation.
OT: RE Nicmar
I'll try doing this much over the weekend while home. I have so many branches starting low I was afraid there wouldn't too much tree left, but I'll take another look and take some out.
A great common sense idea on the inward growing ones.
I'll let you know how it goes.
OT: Nicmar,
We had a pretty good ice and snow mix that stripped alot of my cedar trees of their limbs a few weeks back, but the two apple trees are still needing a trim this year. If you would consider a Saturday afternoon drive from God's country to Silex, MO and show me what to cut, I'll do the all the work, then me and my fiance will cook you and your loved one up a real fine BBQ dinner for your troubles.
Let me know if it's a possibility sometime soon?
Sorry all, not a member and can't do private messaging
I'll have to check back this eve.
I'll be happy to see the breach of contract lawsuit filed, and if so, could be not collect treble damages in such a lawsuit?