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.
Mickey,
Investor relations has become an oxymoron with this company. At least years ago when I would call Janet, I would get a return call and we would get to meet once a year at the shareowner meeting. Now I don't get return calls and the shareowner meeting has been moved to the internet where they no longer answer questions from the rank and file shareowners. Investor relations prevention is what it should be renamed!
Regards,
Eli
Ditto!
I did as well--I too needed a "pin" in addition to a control number. This web based forum seems to be a convenient way to govern who gets to ask questions....
Frustrated that this new annual forum is no longer giving us face to face access to senior management as it once did
Eli R
Done and thanks for all you do!
Eli
test
Huge relative IDCC option activity today--according to Etrade volume on September 55 calls today: 2,232. nothing close to that volume at any strike price in any month for either calls or puts
Eli
13D Filing yesterday--as of Dec 31st-BLACKROCK now owns 8.5% of IDCC..
http://ir.interdigital.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1086364-15-511&CIK=1405495
Eli
No volume at all--so they drop the bid--there just seems to be no retail interest whatsoever. Go figure, with the news that is out on this company, the market continues to humble! Every time I am convinced there will be a volume breakout that will be sustained, I am humbled!
Very Frustrating,
Eli
Exactly--I agree, its to have the parties settle and set the rate rather than have the court do it-that's the path to a "face saving" win/win.
Its never looked better than now--lets hope it gets done!
Eli
Seamless handover technology was being worked on years ago at Interdigital- wonder if we are involved in the background assisting Apple/T-Mobile here --tried investor relations to ask about this - no response
http://venturebeat.com/2014/09/10/t-mobile-announces-seamless-wi-fi-to-volte-in-all-phones-free-router-device/
SHORT INTEREST IS UP as of 6/13.....
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=shortinterest
06/13/2014
4,582,161
7.40
1,258,037
3.64
05/30/2014
4,266,521
(13.70)
341,124
12.51
Question for all--with the board meeting this week as part of the venue with the shareholder meeting Thursday, do we get an announcement on a dividend increase, special dividend, or new stock buyback before or after the ID on Friday?
I'm thinking maybe they keep that announcement in their back pocket for Monday morning--it would serve as support if the ID went against us or would fuel our advance with a positive ID--thoughts?
Eli R
From your mouth to God's ears Jeffree!!! To the shorts--As clubber lang said in Rocky when asked to forecast their fight- the forecast was "PAIN"!!!!!!
Lets get a nice reward for the longtime long and strongs!
Lord knows we suffered more than our share over the years.
Good luck all
Eli
I hope so Jefree but here's the thing that disturbs me---the shorts have been right more times than not and there are still almost 5 million shares short. What do they know they we dont? How can they STILL be short with all positive court information we have seen shared? Do they have an "in" at the ITC? I've always thought that shorts did better due diligence than longs just by nature of understanding the concept of shorting, to me, gives them better insight than a casual long. I hope they get burned big time but would really like to see some hedging from them (option action)or some covering--with this anemic volume, and the recent update in short position as of May 15th (4.9 million from 5 + million in April), I feel like something "smells" here.
Eli
Actually guys--IDCC did announce I believe it was 2 separate licensing deals the day of a shareholder meeting some years ago. I dont remember which year it was but I clearly recall entering the hotel where the meeting was and being handed the press releases that day--maybe someone here can help clarify which year and what licenses.
Thanks,
Eli
Ditto--great post!
God Bless the U.S.A.!
Eli
M3S--that was my take--they are talking LTE and they know one another and are speaking in multiple venues--with the activity at the ITC and Deleware as a backdrop, and Microsoft now about to own this business, the climate for compromise and settlement looks to be the best its been
I'm encouraged!
Eli
So our friend Niklas from Microsoft Corporation in todays press release, who will be participating with Bill on Thursday, was head of Nokia's patent licensing based on my previous post...
Hey Niklas, I'm sure now that you're at Microsoft you are staying abreast of the status of that 613 investigation at the ITC--aren't you?!
Check this out--name look familiar??!!
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Niklas-Ostman/1907234310
Ditto
16K shares traded in the first 15 minutes when the market is up over 100 points--when its this quiet, it usually get loud very soon....can't wait for next week!
Eli
I agree with you--IMO it has and continues to be all about the rate. Its what IDCC and Nokia are jockeying over and until we sign up the #1 market share leader--it seems the company will continue to "use" the issues you mention to make it difficult to pin down what we're getting as an ongoing rate from licensees
Eli
If they did what you suggest, it would make the RATE paid on the new license much clearer which is exactly what they are trying to obfuscate. Am I the only one that gets this? The company does not want to make it easy for others to see what these licensees are paying. Since most of the money now being upped in the guidance appears to be a one time event due to the audit--the street has reacted by bringing the price back down--street wants to see CLARITY on NEW RECURRING revenue amounts and the comapny doesn't want to do that now.
Eli
Jim--just to confirm--was the last date for proposal for shareholder meeting 12/31/09? Looks like you had a typo in your post....
THX,
Eli
Option volume for September calls are huge for 22.5 and 24 eom.
If they weren't hammering out a settlement as I type, they would have never opened the stock for trading today--no reason to--at that point you tell Luckern you can't reach an agreement and you get the ruling. If they let this stock trade its because he had already given them the rest of the day and so the stock at that point could trade today--that's my rational for where we are and hoping they get it done at the 11th hour.
Eli
JeffreyHF---BINGO!!! You have hit a home run with that post!!
IMHO,
Eli
I believe IDCC essentially forgave most of 2g except for that portion of the Samsung license that gets attributed through 2010. Let's remember that Samsung was still appealing the award for 2g IDCC was given in arbitration. That money, IMO, was always there to be negotiated away as part of a 3G rate going forward. Let's remember that MOT paid no 2g money and SNE settled and paid, what, 30 million. I believe this deal passes the 3g rate smell test for both SNE and MOT if we have to go to court to get a 3g rate set. The fun will be with NOK as they complain about the amount they paid for 2g (250 million plus) and IDCC counters with the consideration they gave NOK for that with forgiving 3g until 2006 by terminating their 3g license at the time. I believe IDCC could also argue with Nok about money Samsung had paid towards 2g in the 90's that could make setting the 3g rate with Nokia interesting.
IMO,
Eli
I seem to recall that trading was also halted when the Nokia 2G arbitration win came--I believe it was a Friday in July and we never opened that day--anyone recall?
Eli
Just spoke with Janet and she said they would have an 8k when it was time. I noted we were past the 45 day mark and she simply said that they would announce when they would. I said if it were bad news we would also know by now and "no news is good news". She sounded fine but didn't give me anything more.
Eli
Are you sure the 134 million unit forecast for 2009 is 3G only or is it 2/2.5 and 3G? I thought I saw a number less than 100 million 3G units for Samsung in 2009 but I could be mistaken.
Thanks,
Eli
IDCC signs iwow to a license...eom
This is old news..here's a link to insider transactions which include 1-1-09 recent acquisitions and dispositions. Many only sold enough to cover tax liabilities....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=IDCC
Eli
Spreadtrum...eom
Will first indication that Samsung is done come from filings of terminating actions or will it be a press release? Hopefully we get another head start from filings!
Eli
That's an error thats been out there on yahoo finance everyday for weeks--the real volume is zero.
Eli R
Count--Samsung was not facing a ban the day after the initial determination. Even if Luckern would have decided on a ban, it would have taken another 6-8 months for the decision to become final and Samsung could gave settled anytime up till then. I believe the reason Sam settled was so a decision would not be made. I don't believe Nokia wants to risk an adverse decision either and they will settle before the hearing. Remember both Nok and Samsung were initially defending together and had their playbook ready. Sam settling changes the defense playbook and with the baggage they created with Luckern, I don't believe Nokia wants to see him in May.
IMO,
Eli
Revlis--that was my point in my response to Pianoman--doesn't "subject to" mean more like "when" than if does? Maybe IDCC took a page from the proceedings that you referenced on the definition of "if" and "subject to" was chosen instead.
LOL,
Eli
Pianoman--the "if" you're referring to comes from the Philly journal article. However, the IDCC press release satys the following...
"Subject to Samsung’s selection of a payment option and payment of the first installment of payments due in early 2009, the parties will move to end all litigations and arbitration proceedings ongoing between them."
I don't think "if" and "subject to" mean the same here
Eli
Because maybe NEC and Sharp had miserable quarters...eom