Replies to post #22702 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[BondGekko]

GEJIM CHECK THE FACTS ON SAMSUNG, now i could be wrong, the longs here will know, did samsung just do arbitration with idcc and agreed to pay whatever nok agrees to pay

idcc did not lose the sharp contract, it ended, now we see if they sign a new one, they have had a friendly relationship, don't see why it would end now

your comparison of 34 million from ericy and nokia 120 million is not a fair one, nokia agreed to follow rate of major manufacturer, idcc settled for less with ericy so that they could make other infringers pay, it sets a precedent, idcc obviously had the goods or ericy would not settle, also idcc and ericy formed a partnership and idcc gets money on all sony ericy phones sold

now u are not privy to the behind the scenes negotiating of the ericy case, u don't know why idcc settled for less money, i am sure we will find out soon why they did that, i have a feeling a lot of green will be surrounding that news

also u correctly predicted here that the settlement would be low, so why are u surprised, u shouted that for over a year, now u are using it as a question mark on the company, certainly u were not telling investors back then not to invest based on low settlement prediction, how do i know this, because 2 years ago when i was negative on the stock u were telling me this exact thing

[blueskywaves]

LOL. Reasonable people can agree to disagree about the odds of arbitration with Nokia, but you still avoided my main point about dilution and you keep on making emotional arguments.

If you think that IDCC has diluted its stock excessively then what is your basis for comparison? If you don't like to use the $200M revenue level then use TTM revenue of $88M, which is stale data.

You only make yourself look sillier if you keep on avoiding that issue. Let me make it simpler for you.

Most small companies typically have to scramble to finance its business plan. Issuing equity and debt are the primary means of financing available to small companies. That's why it's useful to look at the number of shares a company has to issue to reach its revenue milestones and compare the rate of dilution to its peers. You're raising the issue of dilution without even bothering to understand that fact. That's why your opinions come out as flighty and trivial.

2003 to date Lost the Sharp contract.

This is MISLEADING and typical of the way you discuss facts.

The original 5-year Sharp contract covering PHS/PDC phones was signed in 1998 and expired in March 2003. IDCC and Sharp, however, agreed on a new 5-year contract covering GSM and 3G in September 2001 which expires in 2006.

The new contract covering GSM and 3G is obviously much more important. Note that global handset sales increased 16% in the March quarter driven by 2G/2.5G cameraphones and phones with color screens. Nokia and Sharp are driving that growth. I also don't expect major problems with the renewal of the PHS/PDC contract.

Expectations and reality concerning this company had not exactly aligned well to date

You're correct. Expectations by shareholders like you have consistently been too high as evidenced by your comments about "pennies on the dollar." That's your problem!

"Pennies on the dollar" imply that you understand what that dollar was actually worth to begin with. Sorry, I haven't seen anything to persuade me of that. You're just sponging off the data you find on message boards and not really thinking for yourself with cold hard datapoints.

Waiting before rewarding being the key point

That's the key difference. You don't think management has done a good job of creating shareholder value by your very subjective measures. I think that management has done a good job of creating shareholder value after the 1995 Motorola debacle by most objective measures. Typically, your view of management quality colors all your other views about the company.

The problem is that your subjective measures are not only questionable but also making you short-sighted. Look at your fixation with management compensation and your utter lack of context because you keep on rejecting the easily verifiable data that clearly shows that despite all the shareholder value that management has created after the 1995 Motorola debacle, its compensation policy is STILL not out of line with its peers in the licensing business.

As an exercise, use QCOM compensation as the upper boundary of a wide range that includes RMBS compensation as the lower boundary. IDCC's fixed compensation packages since 1998 have consistently been closer to RMBS than to QCOM. This should come as no surprise because IDCC's board uses executive compensation experts to align its compensation policies and those experts use relevant data from IDCC's licensing peers, not the crappy data you find on internet message boards.

The reason I think that you're being irrational and short-sighted is because I think that the ERICY settlement dramatically improved IDCC's ability to recruit technical talent in the critical areas of WCDMA chipset tech, battery tech and display tech either through direct hires or Tantivy-like deals or acquisitions. The key to making that work is a small company culture with a generous compensation structure. I've already elaborated at length on how the exercise of an option currently results in a cash infusion, a tax benefit and dilution so I'm not going to rehash those benefits.

What is really amusing is that your short-sightedness is making it impossible for you appreciate the fact that the FASB accounting reforms slated for early next year will encourage a migration of key techical talent from large companies like MOT, QCOM, ERICY and NOK which have relatively inflexible cost structures to small companies like IDCC which has a very flexible cost structure and which already has working relationships with those large companies. That short-sightedness has the same force and effect as a mental block or tunnel vision.

But that short-sightedness is okay since you've always held yourself up as a short-term trader. Just don't try to drown in facts that you barely understand.