ed_ferrari, I'm not weeping a bit
read the numbers and weep:
Why would a holder of the stock weep at good results? One the other hand, I don't see them as being as great as you appear to. If I were to weep, it would be that our management did not achieve more sooner, but since I am relying on the analysis of others regarding the strength of the patents and the ERICY case, it would not be fair. Although management itself did indicate a 1%-3% range for 2G and the ERICY settlement turned that into a joke.
Our licensing program has generated over $400 million in cash since 1995.
That is half the story. How much has it cost us to run the company over those years? During on of the strongest markets in history in which telecom came of age, one would expect not only revenues, but significant income.
Our revenues for 2002 increased 67% over 2001.
The problem with this is that 2001 was artificially low because weren't collecting everything we should. Why do you select a one year performance when in the previous point you went back to 1995.
50% Stock price increase in 2002.
Stock price is based on the market. IDCC falling from $75 to $5 was a demonstration of a stock being greatly overvalued, then falling to being greatly undervalued. Investors analyze and make their investments. Their capital earns them their return. How much did management take in pay cuts and which of them gave salary back when the price collapsed? I don't know of any, nor would I think it was appropriate. They were doing their job and getting paid for it. They still are. End of story.
171% Royalty revenue growth over 2001.
Again, a one year comparison. Secondly, recurring royalties are the significant number to the street.
The management and employees of IDCC have made this happen, not investors like you.
They were hired to make it happen and have been paid and given options and allowed to by stock at a discount through ESPP. We have and expect to have plenty of cash. What's wrong with cash bonuses and raises to compensate them if they do exceptional work?
I'm voting yes!
Tis your right. I've always read your posts and found you to be balanced and well thought out. I've looked at your points on this issue and am not swayed, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Please continue to contribute to the board as I for one value your opinions.
Frank
EconEli made a very good post saying much of what I said here. It was not posted when I drafted my post otherwise I wouldn't have piled on. Since I spent the time to write it, I'll leave the redundancy.
