I certainly thought that the trial was riskier than you thought especially since the November 2000 Festo case decision at the CAFC level was very unfavorable to IPR holders like IDCC. Specifically, I thought the CAFC's decision on Festo in November 2000 weakened IDCC's negotiating position and strenghtened ERICY's position.
Since I thought that the trial was riskier than you thought, I actually had very modest expectations about the settlement even after the Festo was overturned by the US Supreme Court in May 2002. In fact, my focus since late 1999 was on the recurring royalty number because I thought that was the key to making IDCC attractive to more people and institutions. Needless to say, I adjusted my positions accordingly depending on those kinds of developments.
Here's a brief summary of the implications of Festo.
Now I ask you in return, what was the basis for your excessive optimism about ERICY vs IDCC?
Next, in one sentence you say that you have gotten over the disappointment over the settlement, but then in the next sentence you immediately assume that the 5M shares are going to management. Which is it? Obviously, you don't know.
But even if we assume that all the 10M shares go to management/employees on a 20/80 basis, can't you even concede that the cash inflow of $220M (assuming $22/share exercise price) would sweeten IDCC's balance sheet and improve its 3G negotiating position?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
