A few opinions concerning your statements
re: Management led us to believe the terms of the Nokia contract were cut and dried.
I don't recall anything about cut and dry. I DO recall some statements with the word "could" result and we believe. But I don't believe they ever said anything about Nokia believes. And nothing about cut and dry.
RE:. Now we find that the contract terms are sufficiently vague that IDCC and Nokia management both disagree on just what their agreement means.
Gee and here I thought the arbitration was only about rate finalization, per your statement above Nokia and IDCC wrote a contract back in 99 and that contract agreement is vague. I think your getting confused between contract agreement which is signed and rate finalization which is in the push and shove stage. As far As being the same, all I can say is hardly.
Re: Anything can happen in arbitration
Sounds good considering IDCC is currently not being paid. Nowhere to go but up right?
RE: Of course they want a better rate, no rate is better than a low rate and Nokia will get the lowest rate they can, if not zero.
Oh yeah, zero, considering the others currently paying it would seem hard to believe that the arb. board will offer IDCC zero percent. Worthless I/P right. But then again Nokia is selling it retail as are the others, now aren’t they.
Re: Management has lost more credibility here by leading the boosters to believe Nokia was in the bag.
I've never given management much credibility for them to lose. The question than is why have you. If you believe everything ANY company says , expect to get surprised often.
Re: Personally, I think management is doing the best job they can with as little ammunition as they have. Problem is the disparity between what ammunition people think they have and what they actually have. This explains IDCC's "poor" performance all these years. Actually, they have done slightly better than I anticipated (revenue wise). I think management deserves credit for that. But, recent revenue may not continue. It seems management has a preference for license agreements that produce money right away but then fall apart when it comes to long-term revenue stream. This is consistent with my characterization of IDCC as a nuisance company. A company that has filed for patents surrounding wireless innovations. They use the ambiguity of these patents to try to leverage nuisance settlements out of manufacturers. Currently, they are trying to lever the weak Ericsson agreement into royalties that Nokia is calling them on. This is pattern and never ends up with solid long-term revenues, just enough to boost the share price when it's time for insiders to dump their free shares and to depress the price when it's time for more options to be issued.
I have no issue with anything above other than they are also trying to grow their I/P into something more and to develop their own/partnered product to get away from that image.
re Whatever happened to hitting that key 3G market window? I haven't heard much about IDCC's chip (ASIC) development efforts lately.
Release has been stated for spring 2004 with IFX
