News Focus
News Focus
Followers 68
Posts 1204
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/02/2003

Re: jmspaesq post# 310440

Thursday, 02/10/2011 12:10:17 AM

Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:10:17 AM

Post# of 435830
JMS, I would also like to see some clarification from Data_Rox on this post.

IMO, anyone who thinks that the terms under discussion between NOK and IDCC will not change based on the ruling from the CAFC is out of touch with reality here. An adverse ruling against NOK, even if it doesn't result in an immediate ban, will have significant effects on the IDCC share price. This is simply because of the change in dynamics in negotiations between the parties, if nothing else.

The market clearly believes that IDCC has the upper hand at this point. Perhaps one could argue that the upside is already priced into the stock, but I think there are big players betting there is additional upside. I'm holding my shares based on that. The fundamentals are strong and the technicals point to further upside.

You can debate the procedural details of what happens next even with a favorable ruling all day long. But that doesn't have anything to do with the negotiating leverage that IDCC will enjoy after a positive ruling.

Validity and enforcability are not at issue here.

FRAND does not come into play in a settlement negotiation.

JMO

i_q

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent IDCC News