Replies to post #327846 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[badgerkid]

jms, I agree that it's a brand new world for IP as an asset class. That being said, we are still in transition to a whole new class of investors who are buying IDCC for the offensive and defensive value of its IP, not just its current ability to be monetized. I would assume that many of our new investors expect Interdigital to be acquired by a company in need of the patent portfolio.

I am of the belief that Interdigital will be acquired and likely very soon, but the brand new world scenario still applies. In fact, it may prove to be more of a brave new world in the end.

IMO

[ShallowMind]

Joel

One thing that Duke isn't figuring is that the value of the IP now that we have a basis

I guess THAT what I'm saying is being missed by those responding:

ON THE ONE HAND: we have ONLY management's assertions of how good our patent portfolio is.

ON THE OTHER HAND: we have NOT been successful monetizing that portfolio. Don't bother responding that we have Apple, and had LG, and have HTC & Samsung. We are not being paid by those companies as though we really do have VALUABLE IP.

Since we have failed to monetize the IP, everybody here assumes it's a problem with the licensing team. I'm asking, what if that failure is really symptomatic of an IP portfolio that isn't as valuable as management has claimed.

So, assume for a moment that my fears have some validity. If the IP isn't that valuable, how can GOOG or AAPL or anybody be interested in paying a huge premium.

Now, the only proper response to this post is an explanation of how we here really KNOW that IDCC has the IP goods. No tea leaf reading, no connecting dots, and no pointing to the Ocean Tomo report. What objective evidence do we have?

This will be my last post on the topic, because it feels (again) that most people here don't want to be consider anything that isn't rah rah positive.