Who do you think you're fooling, Bux? LOL. As a matter of courtesy, I rarely present an opinion without backing it up with facts. That's why I have considerably more credibility than a zealot like you who dwells on trivialities and doesn't even know how to use facts to back up your trivialities.
Just as an example, IDCC's current royalty rate of $0.42-$0.63 per handset is close to the $0.25-$0.50 handset royalty rate that I started using in late 1999 when people like Mickey were talking about billions and people like you were talking about IDCC's bankruptcy. You were WRONG!
At that time also, practically all of IDCC's recurring revenue base came from the Nokia engineering contract. I correctly pointed out that the key empirical metric that would determine institutional interest in IDCC would be recurring royalty income. You were one of those who were skeptical that IDCC would even generate significant income from its 2G/2.5G patent portfolio. Well, guess what? IDCC's recurring royalty income per share has increased at least 5x from less than $0.25 in 1999 to more than $1.25 in 2002. Not surprisingly, institutional ownership in IDCC has increased to 30%-35% in early 2003 from less than 10%-15% in 1999. You were WRONG, again!
Want more? I was absolutely correct that all the hype about QCOM in 1999 was eventually going to result in a rotation of heavy momentum money from QCOM to IDCC to the superconductor stocks. That kind of sector rotation from the top tier to the second tier to the third tier was fairly common in the late 90s due to the market's abnormal liquidity, including the $50B that the Fed pumped into the system in late 1999 to counter any deviant Y2K behavior. It was really amusing to watch you keep on arguing futilely well into 2001 that IDCC's 1999 stellar stock performance was due to hype and manipulation when IDCC was merely riding on QCOM's coattails. LOL. The people like me who sold most of their stock in late 1999 and early 2000 understood this and never had any illusions about a stock with the weighty litigation risks of IDCC. Again, you were WRONG!
Now that the ERICY settlement has removed the weighty litiation risks, I am really amused that you keep on avoiding the fact that IDCC has already generated $400M in royalty income from its 2G patent portfolio during the last 7 years and that it is poised to generate at least $400M in royalty income during the next two years. Yet you keep on arguing that IDCC is just a patent house subsisting on nuisance settlements. What is really funny is that IDCC is already generating more royalty income per share than QCOM so, using your own tortured logic, if IDCC is a just a sleazy patent house, what does that make your beloved QCOM? LOL.
Face it Bux, you have been consistently wrong in terms of IDCC's fundamentals. That's why you have very consistently and very publicly WRONG in terms of its stock performance. What is really entertaining is that I can already tell that you're going to be wrong about 3G too after having been proven to be too optimistic about 3G in late 1999 when you kept on hyping that QCOM was going to collect a tax on every 3G handset as early as 2003/2004 and IDCC was going to get shut out.
Well, guess what, Buxie? 3G infrastructure spending was only $2.5B in 2002 and represented less than 9% of the depressed wireless infrastructure market. Unless you assume that 3G infrastructure spending will suddenly shoot up to 90% of the total market in the next 2 years then I can already tell that you're going to be wrong about the market adoption rate of 3G in 2006. A-G-A-I-N!!!!!
Lastly, if you were so spectacularly wrong about IDCC's ability to monetize its 2G patents then why should anybody believe your opinions about IDCC's 3G patents? Unlike IDCC's 2G patents which were challenged in court by Motorola and Ericsson, IDCC's patents have never been challenged.
Facts, my man, learn to use facts to back up your arguments so that you can salvage your credibility and reputation as a closed mind.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
