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.
Power, can you please show us why you believe IDCC could be a $1,000 stock in several years? i.e. Types and number of devices sold and royalty rates/device.
A market cap of ~35.5B which is approximately 1/3 of qcom's cap is pretty impressive.
Thanks,
Tech
I agree Goodbuddy, a little dated but here is some back-up I posted previously why Intel needed help. Old post why Intel needs help. I am hoping the recent Intel patent sale is only phase 1 of multiple phases with IDCC or a predecessor to a bid for all patents. (Wishful thinking)
I like several recent developments that I am hopeful will bring IDCC and their fair market value to a head; Heightened patent litigation between Apple vs. Google et. al. (would like to see Jobs last breath quote come true with IDCC purchase by either party(ies)), Patent sales by IDCC leading to sense of urgency to buy IDCC, Possible high roller entrant into cellular market such as Amazon, etc., Judge seeing the big picture in Delaware action between IDCC and Huawei, etc..
While I grow more positive that “all wireless handset manufacturers will eventually be required to pay IDCC royalties”, there are some concerns as well such as; Elimination of import bans, “Un-fair” FRAND rates, etc.. I also grow older same as everyone else here. After 12 fairly patient years, I plan to rebalance my portfolio in 12-15 months greatly reducing my IDCC holdings. I cannot see the market for IDCC being more positive further out in the future than it “appears” to be for the next 12-15 months regardless of my technical beliefs in IDCC.
I welcome feedback why the future beyond the next 12-15 months would be brighter for IDCC. Both CAFC actions “should” be known, LTE is here now, growing already and “should” be licensed/factored in by October 2013. Following link shows unit sales for LTE approaching 150 – 200M units in 2013.
files.shareholder.com/downloads/IDCC/1684874725x0x579151/edf4a718-5d90-4191-9994-dd46a3058504/Nasdaq%20June%202012.pdf
JMHO Tech
LTE & WiFi is my primary area of interest. I knew my question was very broad but didn't know if there was an industry consensus on IDCC's relative merit of their SAM policies. I will find & review the white paper www.nasdaq.com/article/interdigital-presents-at-wi-fi-global-congress-look-beyond-offload-to-wi-ficellular-integration
Happy 4th everyone!
tech
Data, we have discussed seamless wireless hand off and have seen multiple claims (network of networks vision) and demonstrations by IDCC. How would you assess their IP/technology and InterDigital's Smart Access Manager (SAM) policy-driven traffic management solution in comparison to their competitors relative to both horizontal and vertical hand off?
Thanks in advance, tech
OD, I believe Mickey is referring to the 3 paragraphs below referenced in my post last year. The issue of indemnification was debated numerous times in the past with some believing the 1994 settlement provided the “enabler” for QCOM IF they were the indemnifier while others believed that since the scope “appeared” to be limited to narrow band, indemnification was not feasible for wideband. I will defer to Jim, Loop and Data for further discussion and/or clarification.
My personal opinion is that this discussion and most others similar in nature are OBE. Technology and the standards have moved forward. I do not believe rehashing the discussion has a lot of value. Would I like IDCC to get paid for all past and future 2G infringement, Yes. Do I think a 1 time lump sum payment will drive the sustainable share price, No. Would I trade all 2G infringement for a win-win FRAND agreement for all 3G & 4G, Yes. Per slide 5 of IDCC’s 6/26/2012 NASDAQ OMX 28th Investor Program in London presentation http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/IDCC/1684874725x0x579151/edf4a718-5d90-4191-9994-dd46a3058504/Nasdaq%20June%202012.pdf, 50% of sales for 2011 were estimated to be 2G. Going forward 2G declines, 4G increases, and 3G stays constant for the next 3 years. Further more, none of this matters if IDCC can not monetize the patents as discussed earlier. JMHO
Text excerpt from 1994
In return for a one-time payment by QUALCOMM of $5.5 million, ITC has granted to QUALCOMM a fully paid, royalty-free, worldwide license to use and to sublicense ITC's existing CDMA patents and certain future CDMA patents to make and sell products for IS-95-type wireless applications, including, but not limited to, cellular, PCS, wireless local-loop and satellite applications.
QUALCOMM has the right to sublicense ITC's CDMA patents so that QUALCOMM's licensees will be free to manufacture and sell IS-95-type CDMA products without requiring any payment to ITC. ITC's patents concerning cellular overlay and interference cancellation are not licensed to QUALCOMM.
"This settlement agreement permits us to focus our efforts on commercializing our CDMA products and technology without diverting our attention to time-consuming and costly litigation. QUALCOMM and our licensees can build and sell IS-95-type CDMA equipment around the world without concern for patent-infringement suits by InterDigital."
IDCC & QCOM had different agendas back in 1994. Please see my post from last year. The 1st link in my post also has links to other IDCC & QCOM articles that provides a framework of their business focus. JMHO & back to lurking. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66376444
Thanks OD for the update. My primary concern is FRAND establishment in an ever changing patent and standard setting environment as well as the challenge of IP only providers versus manufacturers. As highlighted below in an old post by BlueTower (dated but relevant for discussion), investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67396375 “experts” can’t agree on patent numbers. Agreeing on burdened versus unburdened patent value is more challenging. FYI, see Data's post for latest essential LTE RAN patent estimates. investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77011745
Government involvement you cited brings problem recognition but I don’t see expedient resolution. Without a hammer similar to an import ban, I struggle to see why Nokia and others will not continue their delay tactics. I also struggle to see how fair identification of most major players is performed, invitations with coercion to attend a FRAND setting meeting(s), and setting of FRAND rates is completed in a timely manner. Patent fragmentation similar to the Intel sell makes the task more difficult in the future.
I hoped Jobs vowing he would destroy Android would promote either Apple or Google (or a consortium) to consumate the purchase of IDCC which would have provided rapid IDCC price appreciation (My exit price was north of $82 by ~25%. I never envisioned price to go below pre-SA.). “I will spend my last dying breath, if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs told Isaacson. “I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this,” he said, even if he had to use all of Apple’s cash in the process. Read column about Jobs and Android.articles.marketwatch.com/2012-04-19/commentary/31362193_1_oracle-al-hilwa-android
If the risk raised by the Intel patent sale does not accelerate IDCC licensing, it MAY be years before we see FRAND resolution driving the IDCC share price. I hope not but that is my concern. JMHO Feedback welcome from all.
From BlueTower
#1 -- Informa Telecoms & Media, % of LTE Patents, 5/18/10
#2 -- TechIPm, % of Essential LTE Patents, 1/1/11
#3 -- ZTE, % of Essential LTE Patents, 1/31/11
#4 -- Ocean Tomo, Quality and relevance vs Nortel Patents, 4/7/11
#5 -- Cowen Group, % of LTE Patents, 8/31/11
#6 -- Peter Misek (Jefferies), % of Essential LTE Patents, 7/21/11
#7 -- Peter Misek (Jefferies), % of Essential LTE Patents, 9/21/11
I listed every company that was in anyone's "top five" (plus MMI and Nortel for obvious reasons) and then recorded how they were reported in all of the reports.#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
LG 7 27 6 ? 9 8 23
QCOM 19 25 13 High 14 29 21
IDCC 21 11 24 High 9 16 9
Nokia 7 10 9 Low 11 13 9
Samsung 8 10 9 Low 9 9 9
Intel ? ? ? High ? ? ?
ATT ? ? ? High ? ? ?
Ericson 7 1 8 Low 13 3 2
Huawei 9 1 8 ? 9 9 1
MMI ? 3 ? Low ? ? 9
Nortel ? 2 ? High ? 3 4
Monetizing patents IS the issue. Loop & OD hit the nail on the head in 4 links below. IDCC has patents of value or they would not be subject to FRAND. Challenge is and has been for years how to make users of patents pay a fair rate in a timely manner. Based on Supreme Court, ITC MAY not be the silver bullet via an import ban we once thought. I really like Loop’s suggestion for a declaratory judgment action. I also like; current approach of selling patents (Intel) to incentivize timely license agreements, continued IDCC development and granting of patents, continued involvement in standards setting bodies/committees, etc.. A lot of good work by IDCC BUT the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow needs to stop moving left to right. The continued pizzing matches are noise. JMHO
Loop – “This is exactly why I wrote to the IDCC board suggesting that they engage in filing a declaratory judgment action regarding establishment of a FRAND RATE”
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76904097
OD – “What affects IDCC is the current argument that injunctions/ITC exclusionary orders should not be issued in the case of infringement of standard bodies FRAND patents.”
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77117799
Loop – “Manufacturers want and need a level playing field in order to compete in the market. They want suppliers that they can trust and rely upon to not give a better deal to their competitors.”
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75776983
Loop – “The FRAND defense is being abused by those who make money producing and selling standard compliant products. The small inventor is being squeazed and called a patent troll at the same time.”
investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76912647
romulus – Your posts may take newbies a little while to figure out so I will help them understand why someone that holds no IDCC shares works so hard to protect us from ourselves. They should also know at times you like the stock price to go up. Is there a theme here besides the fact almost all of your posts are based on your “expert” opinions?? Hard to believe you willingly spent so much of your time (became a member on 4/19/2008 and posted 1,340 messages) just to help us from irrational exuberance. If you believe that the market can understand the cellular patents etc. to fairly price IDCC shares you have not learned much since you became a member. (From your post a few minutes ago – “We should never UNDERESTIMATE the market and what it's telling us. this company is just not worth what we where lead to believe and the reason for that IMO IS OUR IP which apparently is not that essential from bidders point of view;” – YOU & EVERYBODY ELSE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE BIDDERS)
IDCC Monday open $48.27 - Friday close $49.09
Excerpts from your posts this week.
Today (Friday) 1:19 – “I believe the slide today in the PPS is just the beginning of the end…… IMO
WE CAPITULATE DOWN TO 40.”
Thursday 9:08 – “as they say the writing is on the wall….it's time to bail out IMO.”
Wednesday – “I believe the GAME IS OVER this time around,….. I believe now we are heading to the thirtees….. we will see $37-38 before to long.”
Tuesday 9:14 & 11:17 – “In any negotiation the actual PPS of any company is the BAROMETER” & “REALLY SICK ACTION TODAY !!”
Monday – “I still do not own any shares and THAT is for a reason " TERRIBLE MARKET ACTION ".”
Romulus – Since I typically try to provide helpful information in my posts here is a hint (see below for which days of the week to predict up & down price moves) for you when trying to predict the IDCC prices in your posts since you did so poorly this week.
IDCC Stock Analysis
IDCC - InterDigital, Inc listed on NASDAQ.
IDCC - Sector: Technology, Industry: Communications Equipment.
IDCC gained 0.16% on 10/14/11 and a total percentage of 1.29% in the past 2 days
IDCC is trading in the range of $43.93 - $70.88 in the past 30 days.
Stock performance base on day of week in the past 90 days.
Monday: -32.62%
Tuesday: 52.55%
Wednesday: 40.50%
Thursday: -26.55%
Friday: -4.72%
Next Earnings Release Date: 10/24/11.
All of the above is just my humble opinion,
Tech
Hi Mickey,
There are multiple sources for 4G LTE projections. Your easiest to compute your 3% rate would be the Barclay report. MHO
The Jun 2, 2011 11:00 AM ET Annual Shareholder's Meeting
Start with slides 19, 20 & 22
Annual Shareholder's Meeting
Another choice would be the Barclay report from April 17, 2011
Start with slides 11, 12 & 24
There is a lot of information in this report
wirelessledger.com/Barclays_report_2011_4_27.pdf
Please Read – IDCC Stock Price Facts
All of the future stock price estimates posted here are Guesses and most all are Wild Azz Guesses
All of the estimates for the timing of disclosure of the strategic alternatives to be exercised by IDCC are Guesses and most are Wild Azz Guesses
Leaks of information associated with agreements, settlements, law suits, etc. by IDCC have never happened
IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE
Unless you thoroughly understand;
The 2G, 3G & 4G standards
All of IDCCs patents as well as those of other standards patent contributors
Interdependencies, Tendencies and Biases of all of the major players that work within the cellular industry
Etc…. You do not have sufficient knowledge to estimate the IDCC stock price with any accuracy even by inferring/interpolating based on the sale of the Nortel and Motorola patent sales
Even if you had the knowledge base required above, estimating whether a bidding war will result driving the price higher than expected is a guess
The so called experts such as Ocean Tomo etc. that have tried to assess the patent portfolios for 4G LTE cannot even reach a consensus on patent count and quality so how can any rational person think the market or their estimate is anything more than a Wild Azz Guess and continue to waste everyone’s time with the pizzing matches
We have already debated the future price and timing of an announcement from every angle sane or insane
Several have done the best any of us can do by providing an opinion based on and backed up by facts disclosing their interpretation of the data. This is true for both the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios.
We all need to chill and just wait for facts and stop the constant bickering and attacks. We appear to have potentially lost some of our more valued posters that have been here for years. Some are lingering and now using PMs. If we don’t start self policing ourselves what Jim and team have built over many years will degrade and fade until at least most of the "noise" moves on.
All of the above is just my humble opinion. Peace to all and good luck.
By the way, whether you agree or disagree with my post please keep your public reply feedback to yourself as I will not reply either way.
cherry_pkr,
In your post #335096 “Here is some info that will sell IDCC.” you portended to be technically savvy expressing your opinion but were very vague providing references for your opinion. I was skeptical of your “perceived” knowledge relative to “a chip company”, "How the chip manufacturer solved their problem, I am not privileged to know. But I do know that 2 of the patents in th IDCC hoard has antenna solutions to this problem." and “There is a recent break thru in a patent held by Apple”. There are many new posters on this board. My goal of post# 335193 was to determine if you were providing value added content posts or just opinions not based on sound knowledge and/or facts. Your responses would also aid others in determining whether to read your posts or not.
I got the answer pretty clearly based on your post #335208 when you said you would provide the 2 IDCC patent #s (I tried to even make it easy for you by providing 2 patent links for your search) which you did not provide and followed up by your post #340542 a month later relative to the 2 patents where you stated “TechInvestor, The new patent law makes circumventing easy. I shall not comment on existing patents any more, for fear that I may unintentionally lead plagiarizers to go around existing IDCC patents. I find that to be a severe deficiency of the new law.” Just an FYI, InterDigital Applauds Historic Strengthening of U.S. Patent System http://ir.interdigital.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=604395
The quote below also in post #340542 from my perspective is an oxymoron or poorly misguided at best. Most all that value the security of the U. S. would NOT post their security clearance level on a message board. J“I referenced my clearance to stress that I long USA, so people will know where I stand.”
By the way, I don’t know what “whole division” you are referencing was “severed” on May 3rd, 2005 when WM was appointed CEO (post 340461) but a response is not needed. Trying to make a point, bolster your opinion or provide value added information using “I saw a picture taken of Obama in Silicon Valley” or “my experience with another billionaire” or “My intensions are noble. So much so that that the US government awarded me a top secret clearance. Does that answer your curiosity?” provides no value added on this board or at least to me. JMHO
Just an FYI, ~1.4M TS clearances were active as of 10/1/2010. Robert Hansen and others of his ilk also held a TS clearance and were convicted of spying.
Please Read - STRATEGIC ALLIANCES, MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS, SELLS, Etc. are all strategic alternatives open for IDCC to explore from my perspective. Most of us have assumed only a partial or entire company sell were the options available to IDCC. I would think and hope the hiring of Evercore and Barclay would evaluate and present all options available to IDCC with a recommendation of which options to explore. Narrowing and evaluating these options could take a little more time than most have assumed based only thinking a sell was the only option.
Even just the alliance alternatives could take time.
Align with Apple or Droid to give them a competitive advantage while enabling faster/better royalty receipts?
Align with Intel or another chipset provider?
Yesterday I asked about being bought by a carrier but what about aligning?
Aligning or Merging with WiLAN or MOSAID or BOTH creating a larger patent base?
Most here would probably be flipped upside down but what if IDCC since they have ample cash and raised $200M to bid on the Nortel patents bought WiLAN or MOSAID or BOTH!
I am not saying the alternative being explored is not a partial or entire IDCC sell, just that we all need to consider there are other options. The reports of "initial bids" may be true but the next rounds could be on hold until the other options have been evaluated. We should not be jumping to conclusions or getting to emotional over pure speculation. I have taken Ron's advice to drink a beer to heart while trying to just keep abreast of the situation but not panicking by all of the various rumors. FYI – 2 or more beers on bad stock price days! Just what the doctor ordered.
All above is JMHO. Good luck to all,
Tech
Novel concept, can a carrier if they buy IDCC gain a cost competitive edge for phones via royalty rate used on their network offsetting the carrier phone subsidy cost while collecting royalties for phones used on other networks? If nothing else why not buy a potential cash cow especially if you can influence royalty collection? Squingebob based on my second question I agree antitrust would be a concern. These are just blue sky type thoughts. JMHO
Tech
Fundamentally at this point in time unless Barclays and Evercore advise otherwise due to alternative exploration, I would like to see most all relevant infringers added as well as a few more patents IDCC feels are rock solid (USPTO approved enhanced word crafted patents etc.). I understand the patent risk associated with patent additions but I think it is time to bring the question of essential patents to closure. I think IDCC would (or at least should) have prepared for the question of essential patents in advance of exploring other alternatives associated with potential customer due diligence reviews. JMHO
I also do not fundamentally understand the stock price. The stock price is within ~10% of the pre-alternative exploration announcement. The MPartners morning report did a nice job stating their position including stating from their perspective the fundamental value for IDCC. From my perspective for the stock price to be this low and with institutional ownership at ~63%, there appears to be a large lack of confidence that a significant change in IDCC will result from alternative exploration. That would surprise me based on the hiring of Barclay and Evercore and for management to disclose the process is ongoing after ~ 2 1/2 months. The other possibility is a pretty coordinated stock price manipulation. JMHO
IF for some reason IDCC was not exploring selling all of IDCC or was impeding the selling of IDCC, the current stock price should invite a hostile takeover. Unless something in a disclosure statement IDCC required potential customers to sign prohibited them from initiating a hostile takeover, I have personally and I know some others have questioned why one has not occurred. JMHO
I'm sure many of you have the same questions. Hopefully sometime soon either all of our questions are answered or the financial results of a deal make the questions OBE.
Tech
Sorry, I forgot to include a very important settlement with QCOM in 1994.
Pivotal CDMA patent exchange between IDCC & QCOM 1994
www.thefreelibrary.com/QUALCOMM+and+InterDigital+settle+CDMA+patent-infringement+lawsuits.-a015882187
Hi ciciagt, I am not going to speak for data but that post for example to fully address would take quite awhile. Please read the second paragraph below and identify one fact other than 2nd round duration that can even be verified. Please do not use the $1-2B value that is rumored to be from someone that knows. In my response to Ima I tried to address some of the key salient facts that were verifiable. I think it is amazing Jim, Data, Postyle, Olddog and others have the time to respond and answer as many questions as they do. I am not sure most people appreciate how much of their life they dedicate to this effort. Feel free to search back through all of the posts they have made since 2003. Most of the questions by the way can be self-resolved by using the Investorshub search function provided by the board or internet.
From Yahoo post
Google also intends to make sure that Apple does not gain more patents in their battle and vice versa. The asian consortium, while not cash rich, also hopes to gain patents to fend off rising litigation battles and costs. The $1-2B bid from the deal reporter means nothing as that is just the tip of the ice berg in a bidding war that started this week. I am hoping, like the Nortel auction, that this 2nd round is done in less than 10 days.
Have good night.
Ima, Info to augment Data's response to try to help. The post from Yahoo is a mix of facts, assumptions & unknowns from my perspective. The 5 links below document the competitive path I looked at several weeks ago. I am providing the links so you can draw your own conclusion.
The following are my opinions for some of the message post statements with article links you can review to form your own opinions. I am not going to respond to the posters price estimates. At this time we still do not know when or what may be sold. All discussions of patent prices are based on both speculation of what is being sold as well as value of what is being sold.
Intel and QCOM do appear headed to wireless competition from my perspective JMHO.
Intel did bid on the Nortel patents and dropped out after the 6th round and joined Google for subsequent bidding by the two remaining bidders.Nortel patent bids I do not see why Intel would not want to bid on the IDCC patents JMHO.
Intel did buy Infineon. www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/204422/why_intels_infineon_buy_is_a_smart_move.html
Intel vs. Qualcomm - March 02, 2009
www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/03/intel_vs_qualco.html
Chips Put Qualcomm, Intel on `Collision Course' - Computers January 10, 2010
www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2010/tc20100110_106921.htm
Why Intel Will Be a Mobile Loser - May. 5, 2010
gigaom.com/2010/05/05/intel-vs-arm/
Intel, QCOM Two-Legged Race For Mobile, Says Piper - May 16, 2011
blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/05/16/intel-qcom-two-legged-race-for-mobile-says-piper/
Summary Box: Intel, Qualcomm results show shifts - Wednesday July 20, 2011
finance.yahoo.com/news/Summary-Box-Intel-Qualcomm-apf-3602564602.html?x=0&.v=1
I hope this post helps Ima and you continue to recover from your chemo. Good night and good luck with IDCC!
Tech
Thanks Data, yes, I better understand your thought process. The potential piece meal approach of selling/licensing patents and/or technology and/or the company from my perspective would be very difficult and problematic even if selling off families of patents due to patent interdependencies, individual customer need, increased patent review due diligence to ensure bidder gets “quality” patents including the large number of pending patents, etc.. I think exploring the possibilities of this approach is (hopefully was, encouraged by TC’s rumor/common sense post) beneficial in several ways; better understanding of perceived market interest and market value; better understanding of individual company needs/desires, aid in development of potential consortium or teaming arrangements by Evercore and Barclays, etc.. I am in the whole company auction belief camp now and optimistic a deal will be made. I still believe the final bid price may be rejected but also believe this is low probability. As Loop posted previously, the best thing to have happened to unlock the unacknowledged IDCC patent value was the Nortel auction. The Nortel auction created this opportunity as well as credibility for what some felt was an unreasonable IDCC expectation for royalty rates.
Although many are unhappy with what appears from their perspective to be a long strategic alternative exploration period, I believe they do not fully appreciate the due diligence required for technology and business case assessment. Committing billions of dollars without having a sound business case for how the return on the investment will be made is unacceptable to their BOD and shareholders as well as irresponsible leading to stock devaluation, lawsuits, etc.. The global economic situation and forecast add another level of complexity to this assessment. Alternative exploration started ~2 ½ months ago on July 19, 2011. If this was a 2 phase initiative for exploring alternatives followed by a whole company sale option it takes a while to perform due diligence, assess IDCC fit in your company, create a proposal, gain proposal approval, submit, IDCC review & evaluate all options, decide and notify with possible negotiation/counter offer, etc.. Multiply this by 2 or 3 for number of alternatives to be submitted to IDCC plus the whole company bid effort. For IDCC multiply this number by the number of bidders.
The “new” IDCC investment opportunity has also brought a lot of new names, opinions and “chatter” to IHUB. This paragraph is primarily offered for those new to IDCC and/or to high risk/reward/volatility stocks and is JMHO. Some of the 1st time posts are very good and offer new insights and perspectives which is refreshing. Hopefully most all new posters see that this is or should be a serious value added message board and don’t clutter the board with non-value added “chatter”. New & old members alike need to realize or remember that as we have said in the past that no information that we know of has ever leaked out of IDCC in the past ~17 years but I will defer to Jim Lur and others that have been around longer than me. Also most all of the “media information” that many are believing is fact is just someone’s opinion that also at times is “twisted” for someone’s benefit. There are way too many tea leaves to read from Seeking Alpha posts, message boards, etc. to make an “accurate sell price” prediction although many try and then argue who is right. Although information is available here and at wirelessledger.com courtesy of Bill to enable you to determine what you believe is a fair sale price, the real price will be what the purchaser and IDCC decide. Hopefully for everyone the sell price is higher than your personal estimate. If your estimate is realistic hopefully a bidding war will occur and you will be very happy with the sale price but the bidding war should be a pleasant upside potential and not an expectation. The people “in the know” realize they risk potential jail time for divulging information and also by the time any real news if it were via a leak would get to us the market would have already reacted. Look at the computer stock trades for the past couple of weeks. Also ask yourself why you should trust your money to someone you don’t know or haven’t collaborated with in the past on a message board or someone else writing a blog. If they really knew anything would they risk jail time for you a total stranger or would they be busy leveraging their house for their big pay day? If the answer is you should listen to them without questioning how or why they know or evaluate the accuracy of the information, please follow this link for some “real insider” news from the Yahoo message board I just escaped from IDCC headquarters! ;) Or just give your money to a stranger on the street. My personal preference would be for you to donate it to charity. JMHO The only accurate information will be released when the sale is approved and announced by IDCC and purchaser(s). IDCC has only made one comment since announcing they were going to explore alternatives and it left all available alternatives open.
Data your Grateful Dead album title What a Long Strange Trip It's Been sums up this IDCC journey extremely well for me. I started following IDCC in 1994/1995 during the Motorola trial and Siemens alliance. Since then we have witnessed and endured;
IDCC – Abreviated highlights
Siemens alliance 1994,
Motorola trial loss 1995,
NEC, Sanyo, Mitsubishi and Hitachi/Kokusai license agreement 1995,
Samsung alliance 1996,
Sharp, Kyocera, Denso, Toshiba & Alcatel license agreement 1998,
Nokia, Bosch & Japan Radio license agreement 1999
WCDMA recognized 1999,
Ubinetics license agreement 2000,
Established ten-year strategic partnership with Infineon Technologies AG 2001,
Matsushita & Sharp updated license for 3G 2001,
Samsung arbitration settlement 2001,
Tantivy purchase and Hop-On license agreement 2002,
Watershed Event: Settlement of the Ericsson (Sony/Ericson)-InterDigital Litigation Ericson 2003 but also the downturn of the IDCC & Nokia relationship,
Nakayo Telecom & RIM license agreement 2003,
Sierra Wireless license agreement 2004,
Toshiba & Sanyo updated license for 3G 2004,
Nokia arbitration award 2005,
Philips Selects Advanced HSDPA Technology For Its 3G Platform, SK Telecom license agreement 2006,
Apple & RIM license agreement 2007,
English High Court rules IDCC patent essential to 3G 2007,
ModeLabs, Asustek & Pegatron license agreement 2008,
Cinterion & Pantech license agreement 2009,
Inventec Appliances agreement 2010,
M2M demo 2010,
July 19, 2011 exploring strategic alternatives
U. S. & World -
Wars/conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, War on Terror, etc..
3 presidents -
Clinton 1993-2001,
Bush 2001-2009,
Obama 2009-
Economy –
Recessions in the early 1990s and 2000s and late 2000s,
Dot com bubble 1995 – 2000,
World Trade Center 2001,
Corporate scandals 2001 – 2003, credit crunch 2007-2008
Multiple global tragedies in addition to wars due to earth quakes, floods, tsunamis, health, etc.
Yes, it has been a long strange trip but we have had the opportunity to share knowledge, joys and sorrows with some of the best people and message board collaborators I have ever seen all thanks to Jim on at least 4 different boards that I remember. We miss those that have passed on, some that could wait no longer and I will miss the valued contributors over the years that kept us well informed when we part our ways. My daughter was born 17 years ago which started my IDCC college fund journey and with the message board help IDCC will now provide her College tuition starting next year. Thanks everyone, especially those that tolerated and educated me when I thought I had IDCC figured out over the past ~17 years. (FYI - Although dmiller would disapprove, I read enough patents and technical data over the years that I felt confident in the technology and IDCC is the only stock she owns. Purchases were front loaded so good dollar cost average. Monetizing the patents however was much more difficult than I ever envisioned. I was very happy when the Nortel auction occurred. I would not recommend this weighting of risk for others. JMHO)
I would also like to thank everyone for their unbelievable generosity helping me to purchase the RT300 earlier this year to aid me in my fight against MS. It has been a godsend for me and I use it 4 times/week and my quality of life has improved, THANK YOU! I look forward to us all becoming one of Jim’s geniuses sometime soon and hopefully meeting at an IDCC meeting and/or celebration in PA, NJ or Baltimore/Washington D. C.! Sorry for the long winded post.
All of the above is JMHO. Good luck everyone!
Tech
PS: Anyone looking at wireless security IP? There is ample layer 3 available free software (Linux & Strong Swan) incorporating NSA suite B but there are opportunities at level 2. Anybody looking at 802.11i security IP or WIPS, etc? Need to work on retirement account after IDCC. Jim, Data, Poststyle, Olddog, Count, ready for a new board in the future for the next “short” journey? ;) Just sayin (Thanks Joel)
Data, care to share why it is pretty obvious to you? Is it primarily due to the hiring of both Barclays and Evercore as well as the lack of a blanket statement of an IDCC auction or more tea leaves? I thought about this also but have not seen this stated by anyone else that I know of. It appears most believe this will be all or nothing which I probably would prefer depending on what assets are left for IDCC. I am leaning towards a consortium that negotiates the division of assets among participants but buys all of IDCC. Thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Tech
Abreviated Nortel bidding summary - TC on ABob's posted a good link to prufrock's post on InvestorsViliage that summarized the Nortel bidding by round. See iZoobs last post on Sunday, September 18, 2011 9:27:52 AM for a link to a full 320 page document which includes the bidding in more detail.
TC's post on AB
prufrock's Nortel bidding by round summary
Sorry if this was posted but didn't remember seeing it but also a little behind on reading all posts.
A little diatribe.
Romuluss and others, please stop wasting everybody's time and making Jim's and the other moderator's life miserable. If you don't have specific value added commentary or a well reasoned opinion, DON'T POST. We don't need to be protected from ourselves or someone to play the devils advocate either positive or negative. If you have a need for a social media outlet please find another site. Most of us have a life and just want the value added information as quickly as possible. Please use eagle-i13's last post as an example. i.e. Member since day 1 here but only 43 posts.
In contrast just for example Romuluss 1,178 posts since 4/19/2008 and depending on the week/month either strong declaration to buy or sale with more To All posts than anyone on any of Jim's boards.
Please no +1s if so inclined.
End of diatribe
Have a nice day,
Techinvester
Hi cherry_pkr,
In your post you make references to patents, a company and antenna challenges.
Care to share which 2 of the 412 Interdigital U. S. patents or 664 patents, published applications or pending patents you believe are essential? I use the 2 links below for IDCC patent searches.
uspto link
patentdoc link
All - We don't talk much anymore about the Tantivy antenna purchase in 2003 but James A. Proctor was an engineer for Tantivy. He helped create 59 patents, published applications or pending patents. 42 for Tantivy, 10 for IDCC and other patents for Qualcomm and others. Our engineering strength also benefitted from the Tantivy purchase.
cherry_pkr - Care to share which chip company encountered dropped link problems 3 years ago? Could it be Anadigics who has been a train wreck since 2008 as opposed to Altair Semiconductor that launched their WiMAX baseband chip in 2008?
Anadigics link
Altair link
You mention MIMO multiple antenna challenges. Care to share your thoughts on the Skycross Isolated Mode Antenna Technology? Smart antenna technology in the form of ESA and AESA antennas for the military have been fielded for years. The miniature size and power for cellular technology is not insurmountable.
iMAT white paper link
You also mention Apple which had their own iPhone 4 antenna gain challenges.
Dropped call link - It's a software problem
Dropped call link - It's an interference problem
I think Apple buying the IDCC patent portfolio would be good for both companies. Hmm...wonder if they might have a fix for the antenna gain problem also. The latest iPhone 5 rumor for the antenna fix is below. FOR HUMOR ONLY - Steve Jobs returns as Apple CEO to buy IDCC in order to resoplve iPhone antenna problems for good! - FOR HUMOR ONLY
Latest iPhone rumor
By the way, pretty surprised you posted your clearance on the internet to gain credibility.
Have a nice day and I look forward to your responses.
Here is the link
QCOM LTE/WiMax PATENT LICENSING STATEMENT (December 2008)
• www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement.pdf[tag]QCOM LTE/WiMax PATENT LICENSING STATEMENT (December 2008)
[/tag]
From posts
332622
and
332619
Hi Data and Slacker,
I view 4G as a paradigm wireless technology shift which to me makes the Nortel and IDCC 4G acquisitions much more important than simply just another defensive patent acquisition. 4G ushers in usage of a new wireless technology base for the foreseeable future. i.e. Evolution from the 3G Edge/CDMA based standards to the 4G LTE/WIMAX based standards based on OFDMA, MIMO and other technologies. I say for the foreseeable future since a 5G standards effort has not begun by any of the standardization bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G ). The following paragraph highlights how QCOM capitalized on the wireless technology shift from analog 1G to digital 2G. The benefits of the acquisition of the IDCC patents would benefit any entity that can successfully license and/or cross license the IP.
QCOM based their initial business foundation and success on IS-95. Their initial CDMA product was challenged for patent infringement by IDCC and Ericson which was later resolved through settlements with IDCC in 1994 (http://books.google.com/books?id=weGlKJGlwFEC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=is95+patent+royalty&source=bl&ots=4Q6ax57YEB&sig=gkINElZF5-QquoWtHjRWJZZFi30&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false ) and Ericson in 1998 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ericsson+Drops+Three+'Essential'+Patents+from+Lawsuit+Against...-a053101283 ). The settlements cleared their path forward and they continued to help develop the mobile technology standards evolution of CDMAone (IS-95), CDMA 2000 1X, and CDMA 1xEV-DO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000 ). UMB (Ultra Mobile Broadband) was the planned 4G successor to CDMA2000 but in November 2008 Qualcomm announced it was ending development of the technology, favoring LTE instead ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Mobile_Broadband ).
Our current discussion of 4G recently has been focused on LTE. Our discussion should also address WIMAX. Fortunately both LTE and WIMAX do not use 3G CDMA spread spectrum radio technology or IS-95. Those technologies are replaced by Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) and other frequency-domain equalization schemes that is combined with Multiple In Multiple Out (MIMO) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G ). The following article highlights the differences between LTE and WIMAX (http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-lte-and-wimax/ ). This last article provides measured performance of existing LTE and WIAX systems operating in the U.S. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207642/4G_shootout_Verizon_LTE_vs._Sprint_WiMax ).
As to whether QCOM acquires IDCC’s patent portfolio or someone else does, time will tell. I do believe IDCC will receive an offer and I agree with numerous other board members that it will be in excess of $110. For the sake of those that have been in for the long haul I hope we are pleasantly surprised to the upside.
Data, Slacker and others, I have tried to identify why I believe QCOM should be considering a bid for the IDCC patent portfolio based on this post and my previous posts late Friday and early Saturday. I tried to leave the financial analysis to others more experienced than me. I appreciate your feedback relative to my earlier posts. I am assuming in order for you to form your opinions especially relative to ROI you have considered and formulated an estimate/SWAG for the following questions. Would you be willing to share your assumptions relative to the following?
1. Since multiple sources believe IDCC has essential 3G and 4G patents, do you believe QCOM will have to pay IDCC a royalty fee for their product/chip sales? If yes, what average % royalty rate would you estimate QCOM would have to pay IDCC over a 5 year period and what would the total 5 year royalty fee be? If no, why?
2. What royalty rate would you estimate IDCC could achieve for an LTE phone sold by Samsung?
3. What royalty rate would you estimate IDCC could achieve on average for the wireless industry excluding QCOM if they licensed 75% of the industry for the next 5 years based on predicted handset and terminal sells broken down by cellular standard implemented in the devices? Extrapolated based on your forecast of quantity of sales and prices, what 5 year sales total would you estimate?
4. Based on #1 & #3 above reduced by IDCC’s expenses during the same 5 year period, what gross earnings do you believe IDCC could achieve for the 5 year period?
5. Based on #4 above, current IDCC cash on hand, the opportunity for IDCC payment for past due royalties and excluding time value of money, what price do you believe QCOM would be willing to pay to purchase all of IDCC including all assets and personnel? You will need to factor in what rate QCOM could charge for the IDCC patents. I still feel based on the 2008 QCOM disclosure they could charge a fee to existing licensees either with IDCC as a subsidiary or incorporated into their existing business case. We can agree to disagree on this point but if you’re willing I would like to better understand your reluctance to consider QCOM negotiating royalty fees for patents acquired from IDCC. Do you believe if Broadcom, Intel, Samsung or someone else bought IDCC they would not try to negotiate/renegotiate with QCOM based on a possible licensing/cross licensing exchange etc. as appropriate?
Feel free to ROM the above estimates as I know they are SWAGS based on many unknowns. I am just trying to better understand why you believe based on all of these reasons why IDCC would not be desirable to QCOM. I would also appreciate any constructive feedback relative to my posts. FYI - I am an engineer straying into finance relative to the paragraph above.
From a short term pop in IDCC share price perspective whoever is willing to buy IDCC is fine with me as long as the price appreciation is acceptable. Depending on who buys IDCC and price paid, I may be inclined to take some money off the table but let some money ride with the new entity. From my perspective it would appear that OFDMA and MIMO will be the foundation patents for the next decade or so similar to IS-95. I think a combined patent pool of IDCC and QCOM for 4G (#1 & #2) backed by QCOMs IP management and the infusion of IDCC's engineering talent would be a pretty interesting entity to assess. From a regulatory perspective this would still only be ~40% of the wireless patent pool for 4G compared to ~47% for QCOMs 3G patent pool percentage. I will let someone else assess the 3 legged stool.
All - JMHO based on a long night of reading and finalizing thoughts based on the past decade of learning on Jim's boards. Sorry for the long rambling post and have a good day, off to work. FYI - The links I provide are just the sources I use to formulate my opinions. I'm sure Data, Slacker and others know most of this but hopefully it is helpful to some.
OT – Data, glad to be back lurking and posting periodically. I had a health setback for several months. I wanted to thank everyone again for their extreme generosity enabling me to buy the RT300 for PT. I received it in late May and it has been invaluable during my rehabilitation. I am hoping to be fully back in ~1 month to where I was in March.
Ellismd & squingeqbob - I was thinking we should plan/arrange the Baltimore/Washington $75. I don’t remember seeing a post that the NJ $50 was held but if the stock pops like we hope, ours and the Houston $100 might be the same time. Do I hear a $125 out there? FYI - If IDCC does not sell the portfolio, I suggest we still get together, enjoy the excitement and plan for the more gradual rise which will come. We just will have to work a little harder on the licensing front.
Since the QCOM statement provides for re-rate setting, the challenge now would be how to accomplish the change. Here are 2 potential options for consideration.
1. Upon acquisition of IDCC, incorporate IDCC as a subsidiary in the same manner as Google is arranging for Motorola .
2. Merge patent portfolios and renegotiate existing 4G patents as needed. Use past royalties due to IDCC as a negotiating point during discussion
I welcome thoughts and feedback from everyone.
Data, since you have thought this was highly unlikely for the past decade, I would appreciate your insights. If you believe it is still highly unlikely, can you think of a concept of operations how it would be feasible? Thanks in advance.to
FYI - My posts are only to better understand why as some people believe QCOM is not a candidate to purchase IDCC. I believe they are but whether they are or not my only interest is for the IDCC stock to be fairly valued.
Discussions comparing the merits of QCOM & IDCC have been occurring on Jim’s boards for over a decade. Most of the discussions have centered more on which company held better patents and which technical path forward post 11/2/1994 was better. 11/2/1994 resolved the litigation between IDCC and QCOM. IDCC’s technical path forward was TDMA/GSM focused evolving to WCDMA and QCOM’s technical path forward was IS-95 (narrow band CDMA) focused evolving to WCDMA. Although both technical paths forward succeeded and evolved to where we are today technically, the licensing of patents was far more successful for QCOM indicative by the delta in market capitalization values. For more historical information see links 1, 2 & 3 below. This history is only provided so that newer board members/followers better understand some history between the two companies as well as some board participant’s loyalties to IDCC and QCOM that have invested and followed these two companies for 20 plus years. I am hopeful discussion going forward evaluating the potential acquisition is from a neutral position.
1. Settlement - http://www.thefreelibrary.com/QUALCOMM+and+InterDigital+settle+CDMA+patent-infringement+lawsuits.-a015882187
2. Technology description - http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/7107
3. IDCC evolution - http://www.wirelessledger.com/tabbedpages/idccreport/evolution.htm
Sources used for compelling reasons in previous post
1. LTE patent pool
• LTE percentage controlled
• http://connectedplanetonline.com/3g4g/news/intellectual-property-4g-0518/
• QCOM assertion of 47% of WCDMA patents
• http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2006/09/qualcomm_patent.html
• QCOM bought Flarion to be a player in LTE (OFDM)
• http://connectedplanetonline.com/wireless/finance/qualcomm_flarion_acquisition/index.html
• See tutorial link below to understand how OFDM is integral to LTE)
• QCOM bought Airgo Networks to be a player in LTE (MIMO)
• http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3646966
• 3G LTE Tutorial - 3GPP Long Term Evolution
• http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/lte-long-term-evolution/3g-lte-basics.php
• Introduction to MIMO
• http://www.mimo.ucla.edu/summaries/INTRO_MIMO&OFDM.pdf
2. QCOM FRAND licensing rate
• Estimates 3G & 4G rates
• http://www.thestreet.com/story/10526160/1/tech-rumor-of-the-day-qualcomm.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
• QCOM LTE/WiMax PATENT LICENSING STATEMENT (December 2008)
• http://www.qualcomm.com/documents/files/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement.pdf
3. Essential LTE patent pool controlled by QCOM
• Estimated # of essential patents by owner is subjective and varies by report
• http://connectedplanetonline.com/3g4g/news/intellectual-property-4g-0518/
• http://www.rcrwireless.com/ARTICLE/20100520/INFRASTRUCTURE/100529998/ltes-clouded-ipr-pool-expected-to-be-clearer-than-3g
• Source for essential pattern pie chart
• http://www.sonlte.com/2011/02/05/interesting-analysis-on-lte-patent-situation/
• Source for Ocean Tomo chart
• http://www.oceantomo.com/system/files/Nortel_PR_LandscapeMap.pdf
4. Eliminate IDCC as a competitor and aid industry consolidation
• http://www.sonlte.com/2011/02/05/interesting-analysis-on-lte-patent-situation/
5. Gain qualified industry recognized engineers to fulfill open QCOM engineering positions
• QCOM job search engine
• https://jobs.qualcomm.com/public/jobSearch.xhtml#messages
• Summary of IDCC engineering capabilities
• http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?rpc=66&symbol=IDCC.O
• Source for LTE RAN chart
• http://techipm-innovationfrontline.blogspot.com/2011/01/lte-ran-products-licensing-power.html
Several reasons why QCOM should consider buying IDCC
1. Increase percentage of LTE patent pool controlled by QCOM from 21% to %40
• Currently QCOM controls 21% (FYI – Bought Flarion for $600M in 8/11/2005 and Airgo Networks 1Q 2007 for LTE bootstrap to gain large control % of patents, shows QCOM is not adverse to buying IP when prudent)
• Currently IDCC controls 19%
• Combined QCOM & IDCC would control ~40%
• In 3Q 2006 QCOM believed they owned 47% of WCDMA
2. Increase QCOM FRAND licensing rate by controlling larger % of LTE patent pool
• Estimated 3G QCOM royalty rate ~4-5%
• Forecasted 4G QCOM royalty rate ~2-3.25%
• Purchase of IDCC patents would permit QCOM to negotiate higher royalty rates possibly back to 3G or higher royalty rates, i.e. control 40% of patents much closer to 3G 47%
• Reference QCOM’s LTE/WiMax PATENT LICENSING STATEMENT (December 2008) for an exception to their self imposed 3.25% cap “Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents).”
3. Increase percentage of essential LTE patent pool controlled by QCOM
• Estimated # of essential patents by owner is subjective and varies by report
• The following chart shows one assessment of essential patents by owner (The chart should be used as a reference only as other reports differ on essential patent holdings)
• • • The following chart courtesy of Ocean Tomo used their proprietary process for patent evaluation to compare the LTE Nortel IP to competitors. The chart is for reference to show LTE patent based comparisons between QCOM, Nortel and IDCC.
• • 4. Eliminate 1 of 2 competitors that could put QCOM chips at risk for litigation and/or QCOM royalty rate at risk and promote industry consolidation
• Intellectual Ventures and IDCC are both pure IP players and do not have a cross licensing need
• QCOM customers may look favorably upon this acquisition to simplify patent use approval process as part of industry consolidation
5. Increase number of QCOM qualified telecommunication engineers
• Proliferation of wireless patent creation by other companies will challenge QCOM’s leadership position
• QCOM has a very large number of open engineering positions on their web site
• IDCC has over 200 engineers and are recognized leaders in the industry
• Experience in areas that seem to be of interest to QCOM where they have bought IP; OFDM, MIMO, etc. Flarion 8/11/2005 $600M (OFDM), Airgo Networks 1Q 2007 (MIMO)
• LTE RAN (Radio Access Network) patent comparison between QCOM, IDCC & Samsung. If the rumors are correct that Samsung has withdrawn from the auction that is a shame as they would benefit from IDCCs patents
•
6. The reasons I listed above would drive financial gain for QCOM. When evaluating the financials for IDCC currently, we need to keep in mind various potential upsides for future licensees such as payment owed for past usage etc.. Various analysts, Nuke John, jmspaesq and others have done a nice job highlighting the upside for IDCC if sold. All of the upside for IDCC would fall to the bottom line for the acquiring party less purchase costs and any overhead. Although QCOM provided provisions enabling them to increase their royalty rate upon patent purchases, dealing with current licensees may be problematic.
•
Loop, I agree the industry is doing the work for us. I have assembled multiple excerpts with links to simplify reviewing some key articles. I also agree with what appears to be the minority here that the purchase of the IDCC patent portfolio is not a dead issue. The due diligence will take time. Some of the time urgency and price competitive pressures may have been lessened by the Motorola purchase and the IDCC Board may not receive what they believe to be a fair offer in the timeframe potentially they are looking for but the need for patents by industry participants has not gone away and the perceived patent value is still higher now than prior to the Nortel auction.
The following is a short list of media excerpts supporting the need for patents by industry participants. FYI – Whether we sell the patent portfolio or we have to go the licensing route, I also believe IDCC will eventually prevail and be fairly valued. We may not like the timeframe however when it appeared a high sustained price level was near.
Reasons why the IDCC patent portfolio is still in play
The transcript
"The focus is now doubled. The focus is now not only on the patents that companies own ...also the cross-licensing arrangements in place...
We look at it as a 3-legged stool. You need to have the handsets, you need to have the operating system, and you need to have the wireless protocol. The deal today was a focus on handsets and operating systems. The wireless protocol was a deal focus of the Nortel portfolio a few weeks ago. So look to see who fills in that third piece of the puzzle for either Google or others in the market...
InterDigital is a company that we have been talking about with our clients for some time because we believe that their wireless protocols are very strong... Most people don't have the three-dimensional perspective... they are looking at the operating system and the handset and they are not focused on the fact that the wireless protocol is a critical piece of the puzzle. We think it (IDCC) is still an important asset...
I don't think today's action was the end of the story --I think there is other M&A activity to come. We're a big believer in the InterDigital Portfolio...
external link: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000039432
Here is also a link to the Ocean Tomo Nortel 4G/LTE portfolio comparison chart - http://www.oceantomo.com/system/files/Nortel_PR_LandscapeMap.pdf
Digital’s wireless patents, according to its CEO, are “deeper and stronger” than Nortel’s. A consortium led by Apple purchased Nortel’s thousands of patents for $4.5 billion last month beating out a bid by Google.
Source for excerpt - http://financialbin.com/2011/07/20/apple-and-google-bidding-for-wireless-patent-house-interdigital/
Microsoft also wanted to buy the company, according to Gigaom’s Om Malik. Sources told Malik that Microsoft was in lengthy talks with Motorola, apparently trying to acquire the handset manufacturer to boost its own patent portfolio. This, Malik says, prompted Google to step in swiftly to pay $40 a share, a whopping 60% more than Motorola’s closing price on Friday.
Source for excerpt - http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2011/08/16/morning-tech-wrap-google-motorola-apple/?partner=yahootix
Analysts, however, said the possibility of Google still being interested in InterDigital cannot be ruled out.
“One can never have enough patents and the reasons they would be interested in Interdigital are still mostly intact,” BGC Partners analyst Colin Gillis said.
Some of InterDigital’s patents are essential for international telephony and will not overlap with those that the Motorola buy will bring home to Google, analysts said.
Source for excerpt - http://worldonlinebank.net/interdigital-skids-after-google-goes-for-motorola-mobility/
Google’s move may prompt Apple, Samsung or Microsoft to go after RIM for its intellectual property, Misek said.
‘Bulk Up’
“Apple has to respond, in my view, and to bulk up its patents a little more,” Misek said in an interview. “They have cash. There has to be a response. So do Microsoft and Samsung.”
Apple spokeswomen Natalie Harrison and Trudy Muller didn’t immediately return messages seeking comment. A spokesman for Microsoft declined to comment.
As a patent holder, RIM may be a less attractive acquisition target than other wireless companies, Michael Mahoney, senior managing director at Falcon Point Capital LLC, said in an interview.
“RIM is losing in the marketplace in the developed world,” Mahoney said. “In my view, RIM is highly unlikely to emerge a winner in the technology race. I don’t think their patent portfolio is likely to cover the most cutting-edge technology. The breadth of what Motorola has developed is orders of magnitude higher.”
Source for excerpt - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/blackberry-maker-rim-left-in-no-man-s-land-after-google-s-motorola-deal.html
My (techhinvester) note on the risk to Android handset manufacturers – Please read the link from Olddog967 below before reading the last link. Can Google be trusted to play fair?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/google-turning-into-a-mobile-phone-company-no-it-says/
The rival handset manufacturers, which have been building devices with Google’s Android software since 2008, may have a harder time cranking out bestselling devices because Motorola Mobility may get earlier access to the newest Android technology, said Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at research firm Gartner Inc. The acquisition gives Google an incentive to favor Motorola Mobility, and association with the Internet company will give Motorola handsets a leg up in competing for consumers.
“This is their nightmare scenario,” said Gartenberg, whose firm is based in Stamford, Connecticut. “Google has gone from partner to competitor.”
Source for excerpt - http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-16/google-undermines-samsung-led-handset-makers-with-motorola-tech.html
Rich Bloem - It's been ~16 months since you last weighed in on IDCC. Since we have had a recent return of some posters from long ago care to share your current thoughts on IDCC?
i.e.
From 10/19/2009 post
- Disappointed but not surprised by ITC decision and perceived a tough path forward, Any current thoughts on CAFC, possible ruling and path forward?
- Impressed by Merrit but perceived enormous task ahead, Still impressed?
- Agreed with recommendation to remove the poison pill and appeared to believe a buyout may be a desirable option, Still believe this to be an attractive option for shareholder value?
- Appeared based on your post you did not plan to buy shares of IDCC, Are you still waiting to buy shares of IDCC? If so is it for the same reason as back on 1/18/2006 when you were waiting for the ability of the street to forecast earnings and end of contracts such as LG?
Thanks in advance. There is still a lack of clarity relative to CAFC, additional licenses, earnings forecast accuracy due to uncertainty etcetera but it does not appear that our entire future revolves as much around Nokia as in the past. I was just curious from your perspective what your current thoughts were and whether you were invested in IDCC.
OT - Thanks everyone for the continued support! In addition to the support I have already received via GiveForward and PayPal, I received yesterday 4 checks from IHUB members totaling $210. Thanks everyone for the continued kind words of encouragement and generous donations! We are now 59% of the way towards the RT300SLSA total cost when PayPal and all other sources of funding are included enabling me to purchase the RT300. I plan to purchase the RT300 when I raise an additional $1,500. I will cover all additional RT300 and associated equipment expenses myself courtesy of IDCC stock appreciation. Thanks IDCC!
As I wrote in an email to Jim last night, I am truly humbled by the generosity everyone has shown my family and me. Everyone has been extremely generous. Several members have said they were sorry they could not contribute more. Please don't be sorry. I have received donations from Corpgolds “over the top” donation of $1,050 (Unbelievably generous!) to several more modest but equally appreciated donations of $5. We appreciate and value all support whether it is monetary or words of encouragement. The following is a quote from my email of thanks to Jim last night.
“Hearing the kind words of encouragement re-invigorate me to be the best physically I can be. At times you can feel too tired to do the one last rep or take one more step etc. at physical therapy. After hearing all of the support from everyone not only do I feel I am letting myself and my family down but also all those that have gone out of their way to encourage and support me when I feel “too tired”."
With that motivation and soon the RT300 thanks to your support, I feel that I will be ready to take on any new MS challenges should they arise as well as battle the current challenges. I hope to be as resilient as all of you have been during this long journey with IDCC. I feel our day in the sun with IDCC is just ahead and I am very pleased with the recent performance. Thanks to all of those that have helped me keep the faith over these long years!
Please take care and thank you very much!
Dave, Eileen & Stephanie Foster
OT - Thanks everyone for the continued support! As of 10pm today 12 IHUB members have made generous donations totaling $965 using PayPal and 19 IHUB members have made generous donations totaling $2,840 using GiveForward, THANKS, you guys and gals are awesome! We are now 58% of the way towards the goal when PayPal and all other sources of funding are included enabling me to purchase the RT300!
I wanted to send a personal thank you to each of the generous donors but cannot due to some contributors not providing email addresses on GiveForward and confidentiality on PayPal so here is a public thank you to everyone.
Thank you very much for your very generous donations. The FES bike is an unbelievable aid in my fight against MS. The benefits that I receive from the bike are the best I have received while trying to stay fit over the past 10 years. It allows me to gain strength, muscle mass and endurance to stay mobile using forearm crutches as well as the secondary health benefits from a cardiovascular perspective. Using the bike is the only means that I have discovered which permits me for the first time to feel that I have a way to at a minimum not only maintain my current physical health status but also have a chance to actually improve my mobility. We are deeply grateful for your contribution and thanks for your kind words and support which mean a lot to me.
Please take care and thank you very much!
Dave, Eileen & Stephanie Foster
OT - Thanks everyone for all of the continued kind words of encouragement and support! Jim wanted me to provide periodic updates relative to the IHUB member donations exclusive of the GiveForward website. As of 2pm today 11 IHUB members have made generous donations totaling $865 using PayPal, THANKS! We are now 57% of the way towards the goal when PayPal and all other sources of funding are included enabling me to purchase the RT300!
I have always considered myself lucky to be a part of the IHUB community to share and discuss the merits of IDCC. Everyone has always been very generous with their time and commitment to ensure everyone had their eyes wide open relative to their IDCC investment. Everyone has now extended their generosity to include supporting me in my fight against MS. This generosity has me in awe of the caring and compassion everyone has shown towards me in my time of need since most of you have never met me except through information exchange via IHUB. I look forward to hopefully meeting you at either a share holders meeting or one of the milestone celebrations in the future. Sincerest thanks everyone for all of your support, Dave, Eileen and Stephanie.
OT - Thanks everyone for all of the kind words of encouragement and support! The outpouring of support is very much appreciated. I am not a paying member so I cannot provide private replies. Also, I have limited internet accessibility at work so I apologize for the delayed responses.
Several people have requested my home address to send a donation directly to me.
Dave Foster
6474 Summer Cloud Way
Columbia, MD 21045
PayPal Update - In addition to the very generous donations on Give Forward, I have received as of 2:45pm 6 donations totaling $410. Thanks everyone for your donations!
XDX - The PayPal donation was received. Thank you very much for your very generous donation!
DWS - FYI, The RT300 is an amazing piece of physical therapy equipment for both my upper and lower extremities. So far it has enabled me to reverse muscle atrophy, become physically stronger to improve my mobility using forearm crutches and has improved my cardiovascular health. The RT300 has provided me for the 1st time the ability to not only maintain my current health but also the possibility to improve my physical health. If the person you know that has a disability would like more information, I would be happy to discuss my experience with them and very strongly recommend the RT300.
All – Although the Give Forward site says that I am only 28% of the way towards the goal, I am actually 54% of the way towards the goal when PayPal and all other sources of funding are included. Thanks for all of your help to enable me to purchase the RT300. You all have been very generous and are a big part of why this goal will be achieved, THANKS!
Hi Jim and All, Thanks and PayPal!
Sorry for the delay, I just came home from work and was blown away with the response! I knew we had members that were extremely generous with their time and knowledge but you guys and gals are also incredibly generous financially as well! I am overwhelmed by the kind words and generosity. THANK YOU FOR THE IHUB COMMUNITY SUPPORT!!! What an awesome group of people! We are deeply grateful and appreciative of your support to enable me to continue my physical therapy at home. You have gotten us closer to our goal in one day than we have gotten over the past month.
I created a PayPal account in order to receive donations as requested by some members which does not require you to use the GiveForward website. The link below will permit investors to donate via PayPal.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=SQWLRPQBZD96U
My sincerest thanks for your support!
Dave
OT - Thanks Jim, please check your email.
OT - JimLur, I sent you an email at your old att email address if that is still a valid email address.
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks, what timeframe would you estimate for a ruling?
Thanks in advance and have a great weekend!
The ID reinforces the IDCC validity claim but also states not infringed by Nokia. It would appear to help Nokia more than IDCC. The ITC results indicate that Nokia will not settle until forced to via an import ban or until sufficient provider pressure is applied to Nokia or until IDCC offers a rate amenable to Nokia that to date IDCC has been unwilling to offer. Question is how far apart the two sides are in the bid/ask price.
Dave
Gio, only Ellis and I had to leave when we attended on Friday. I was hoping others (unsigned potential customers or analysts) would have attended also. Guess everyone is waiting either for a settlement or decision as opposed to reading tea leaves by only hearing parts of the testimony.
Dave