L2V, sorry you took exception to my use of the word, "peanuts". I used it only in context of your post that IDFCC had ERICY under threat of the "hammer". I just cannot agree that the settlement discussion involved – in a meaningful, codified manner – 3g terms. I do not think we had a ‘smoking gun’ left in the holster.
I could believe it IF, and ONLY if there was also a 3g deal tied to it. Consequently, “peanuts”.
Your point #1 – substantiates my view. All that was left was the peanuts.
Point #2 – for whatever reason [notably survival?], IDCC had to settle with NOK in 99 for peanuts and some revenues on the engineering side, just to remain viable. In so doing, ERICY also got away for peanuts. Howard called it a ‘watershed event’ as the thinking at the time was that the trigger on NOK post 2002 was pulled. And as we now see, this was less than a slam dunk than originally thought. Oh, well.
Point 3: just enough to break even. I DO call that “peanuts”. Sorry, but none of this constitutes “smoking guns” or “hammers” in my book.
Point 4; I will certainly agree with that. If this does go our way, it will not matter what any of us thinks. Mr. Market will hopefully have touched the match to the fuse.
Point 5: Too many contingent conditions keep getting thrown in the way of this stock. NOK won’t pay unless some of the other biggies pay. Negotiated a deal calling for triggers, separate discussions and ultimately arbitration. None of this would be if there were smoking guns and hammers or watershed events. SAM also is now conditional on NOK it seems. Has anyone really considered the downside of,…Is there really a trigger pulled here? I hope it is not true, but the possibility exists that a “trigger” has not been pulled. I seem to recall, but cannot put my hands on it, that the 99 deal required TWO [2] separate triggers. Many here, including me, seem to implicitly agree that ERICY and E/SNE constitute the 2. Could the arb boys think otherwise? Hmm. Maybe I’m all wet, but this is an ever increasing nagging thought.
Point 6: So far, only revenues from E/SNE and a few others. Nagging thought: what if we lose this arb? Or don’t get as much as many think? I don’t know exactly how MFL conditions will work in our licenses, but on finding out that the big gorilla on the block is skating, will all the others be able to skate as well?
Also, if we cannot know the terms of the MFL, how is it that anyone can invoke it? I suppose you can calculate it with a little snooping and algebra, but … Hmmmm.
Point 7: Possible. IF we win. Please remember, I do not see a deal on the table, there is no indication that management sees a deal on the table and we are in court with NOK and LU. NOK will not let any of this go and LU seems not to be letting anything go. [Saw Mad Money tonite and they had a spot on QCOM and how NOK, et.al. were going to renegotiate the 5% [the promised land?] rate down to 3 or so. No telling what will happen, but this all adds up to not looking so good – A FAR CRY FROM hammers and smoking guns.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
All IMO.
AI
