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.
rumor comes, rumor goes.
that's why never build the price on rumors...
1. Do I start this process by "buying to open"?
YES
2. Let's say the CAFC spanks us sometime between now and before March 19, and the price drops to $16. I have the option of selling my shares at approximately $23.25 based on my strike prices of $26 - the $2.75 premium). How do I do that? Am I buying to close or selling to close? I haven't found a clear explanation of this end of the process. My $13,750 premium is a sunk cost, right?
You can exercise your 50 put options. Alternatively, you can sell you shares and your puts altogether. Both ways will give you roughly the same money.
3. If on March 19, 2011, the share price is still $26 or more, I simply let the "contract expire" lose my $13,750 premium and can do as I please with my shares.
YES.
4. If we emerge from this event a victor and the prices rises to $40 per share (same as #3 situation, I guess), I simply let the option expire, lose my $13,750 premium and do as I please with my shares I assume? I could sell my shares on January 15 at $40 and simply do nothing with the put option?
YES.
5. I don't want to think about spendin $13,750 and the court has made no decision by March 19th.
Have no ideal when the court will rule.
a P/E of 8.5 (actually forward P/E is 11.2) indicates that street thinks IDCC is NOT really a "fast growing" company.
Microsoft, a brand that everyone recognizes, has a P/E of 12.4 (forward P/E only 9.8!!!!), PLUS A DIVIDENT OF 2%!
So if you want to talk about P/E, why don't you buy MSFT?
Indeed, our quarterly revenue has been flattened for some quarters, not much growth there without any significant new licenses, plus an uncertainty of license renewals/expirations, you just can't blame that IDCC is currently traded with PE around 10.
I saw Iphone4 using skyworks' GSM/GPRS chips,
but didn't see any umts chips...
stange
One of the other callers today did a good job drawing the correlation between Nortel and Interdigital, suggesting that Interdigital's LTE patents which Merritt believed and stated to be more valuable than Nortel's are therefore worth more than the $2 billion price tag that Nortel's are supposedly worth.
Key words in the above paragraph is "Merritt believed". And I remember Merritt believed we would prevail in ITC...
So qualcomm's 76 million debt was converted into <15% holding.
IDCC's 30 million bought maybe about 5% of pantech?
Your chinese language skill isn't good enough.
The post didn't say anything about "easily create patents comparable to IDCC's IPR" and "try to develop work-arounds".
Top three paragraphs states the history, license and financial information about IDCC, respectively.
The author stated the reason for writing this article is to wake up those manufacturers in china to pay attention to the following two aspects:
1. Patent companies such as IDCC and NTP had successfully fought and won cases against large companies. Therefore Chinese companies should pay attention to this trend and should study these companies and get prepared, because the author thinks with the increasing market shares owned by Chinese companies, these patent companies will go after them.
2. Interdigital only has about 300 employees yet it has 30% profit margin and 980M market cap. But some large Chinese companies have more than 10,000 patents yet they can't get similar profit return from those patents. Therefore IDCC should be a model to follow by some chinese large companies that care too much about the quantities/numbers of the patents they created. (my comment---I didn't quite follow the logic here. When talking about return per patent, shouldn't Qualcomm be the model to follow here? LOL)
105M is not from update licenses. It is from existing licenses.
Is the ALJ's final ID released?
why worry about stay the ban when we haven't got the ban yet?
worry about getting the ban first.
That is why IDCc keeps getting these continuation patents in order to paint NOK and others into a corner where they can't wiggle out.
If the wiggling room already exist and those companies are practise those technique before IDCC patented them, aren't these "wiggling room" considered "prior arts" now? How can IDCC file continuation patents to deal with those "wiggling room"?
Thanks.
Also, why didn't IDCC persue infringment against Nokia in England after we got a ruling of essential patent?
that should be an easy one to do.
I don't care how many phone nokia sells in england, just hit nokia anywhere that we can...
why didn't IDCC go after the infrastructure in the current suit?
Now we have to go through all this again, spending milliions and 2 more years...
So when was this patent issued?
why didn't IDCC include/add this patent in the suit?
walk away with valid patents is good...
yeah, it's time to open a champagne.
oh, btw, it's bonus time again...
don't you think Nokia was enduring risk (1% or 99%) going through all these?
by delaying, it's 0%.
you pick the one which is better.
ask 23.99 now, what is going on?
looks like this is more than a game
something is out
what was the previous number? 446?
it seems that the most recent one is still 7/27/09
stop loss will NOT work if it is gap-down opening (lower than 25) the next day.
also it depends on your position. If you have a large position, your executed price might be much less than 25.
anyone knows the answer for this question?
If ITC rules in favor of IDCC today, that is a ban on NOkia's import,
when will the ruling be effective?
A) August 15th
B) sometime in Dec after the Commissions' review
C) sometime in Feb after president's review if Nokia requests
D) After district court rules if Nokia decides to appeal the ITC rulings through district court.
Thanks
dmiller, i am talking about whether judge will consider the interests for both parties involved in a legal battle when he carries out his procedures.
My point is that judges will accommodate the interests of both parties in his procedures as long as such move is within the boundry of the law.
Releasing the ruling after close is not against the law and I believe the judge will do so.
LOL, so the judge should order to reveal all the other confidential information in those filings. Why should he give a crap about keeping them confidential?
IMO ALJ will release his decision after market close.
Can't agree more....
Do not expect ITC staff stays late after 8pm to do so.
Does ITC care about how IDCC stock trades? I doubt it.
IDCC can request trading halt anytime, btw
Who will blink first?
that's the question. hahah
because the judge said "don't push me. the deadline is tomorrow"
Geez, LTE rate will be lower than 3G rate....
I thought we have stronger patent portfolios in LTE. Nokia is already expected to pay .25 to .35 per 3g phone. Will IDCC have to accept a nickle or a dime from Nokia for every LTE phones?
IF that does happen, I think this board will start to focus on 4G LTE.
At least we have dreams, lol
looking back, we still haven't reached the level most projected 6+ years ago
Posted by: Norfolk Date: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:50:48 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 265891
Ok here is the pole so far:
scooby5 -$49.00
Nesco -$64.76
DWS -$38.50
Biggineg -$53.75
Frank Nevada -$60.00
mike12kidc -$78.00
sluggo33 -$69.69
ed ferrari -$22.50
micromays2 -$42.50
GE Jim -$31.40
bivouac -$55.00
rob1945 -$12.50
nohotin -no price
ppart1111 -$29.88
Dishfan -$49.89
Norfolk -$42.00
so who sold those calls?
what's going on now? any news?
Jim, the next question is "Is the threshold set for the life of the license contract, yearly, or quarterly?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1
A possible loophole: canceling plans
After Rule 10b5-1 was enacted, the SEC staff publicly took the position that canceling a planned trade made under the safe harbor does not constitute insider trading, even if the person was aware of the inside information when canceling the trade. The SEC stated that, despite the fact that 10b5-1(c) requires trades to be irrevocable, there can be no liability for insider trading under Rule 10b-5 without an actual securities transaction, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (1975).
This staff interpretation raises the possibility that executives can exploit this safe harbor by entering into 10b5-1 trading plans before they have inside information while retaining the option to later cancel those plans based on inside information. Although paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) does deny the affirmative defense to offsetting or hedged transactions, in that case there would still be an actual trade (whichever of the offsetting trades was not canceled) that could constitute insider trading and violate Rule 10b-5. The SEC's position is that there can be no insider trading without a trade, so that a person could cancel a planned trade based on inside information and avoid liability. Although technically any plan that is cancelable does not come under the 10b5-1 safe harbor, proving that an executed trade was hypothetically cancelable might be very difficult.
A few academic commentators have written about this issue, arguing that insiders can make systematically above-market profits by using 10b5-1 plans that they are still able to cancel. One empirical study has found that insiders using 10b5-1 plans do in fact make above-market profits (the paper also alludes to other potential loopholes that might explain this result), and another has found that the presence of publicly-announced 10b5-1 plans has economic effects on securities markets that are generally associated with insider trading.
FYI, $6400 is the insurance for you to sell IDCC at $25, not at current price,
Jim, do you think IDCC forgave samsung's 2G money, the money that was awarded by the ICC and should have no problem correcting it pending court confirmation?
Jim, I guarantee you that you will never know if the company forgive the past due from Nokia for 3G or not IF there is a settlement, whether before or after ALJ's ruling. I bet any settlement will be flat rate one which IDCC will recognize the money in a forward way, with little or no money allocated for past due, similar to the way IDCC handled with money from Samsung's 2G arbitration win.
I can't remember the sequence of the licensees that we signed. But I am sure that Mot was not the first one to pay for 2G usage.
So how about those companies who paid ahead of Mot? Did they not examine IDCC's patents before handing over the money?
Anything could happen in our legal system. It will never be too cautious and prepare for the worst. Samsung and the others paid IDCC for 2G but Motorola came out paying nothing. how to explain that?