SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Interdigital Communication(IDCC)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: nicmar who wrote (5125)12/16/2011 11:03:57 AM
From: slacker711
1 Recommendation   of 5181
 
Missed your usual contributions on the ihub interdigital board.


I've just been on the sidelines. My assumption in July had been that management wouldnt have made the announcement without significant interest. However, as the deal dragged on I began to question whether management and potential acquirers would be able to agree on a price.

The danger over the medium term is that if IDCC loses the CAFC ruling that investors will start looking at 2013 earnings without LG or Samsung. I really dont want to get "stuck" in IDCC for years while waiting for various court rulings.

Who knows though? An adverse ruling in one of the many legal cases going on right now might change how much an acquirer is willing to pay. If Apple really does have pass-through rights to Samsung's 3G patents (via purchase of Qualcomm's chips), that would mean there is quite a hole in Samsung's patent defense.

Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: slacker711 who wrote (5126)12/16/2011 11:38:58 AM
From: nicmar
   of 5181
 
Who knows though? An adverse ruling in one of the many legal cases going on right now might change how much an acquirer is willing to pay. If Apple really does have pass-through rights to Samsung's 3G patents (via purchase of Qualcomm's chips), that would mean there is quite a hole in Samsung's patent defense.

According to the latest, that may be the case if sammy is acquiescing to Apple's units that contain the Q chip.

Dare one bring it up on the board over there as one will get hammered unmercifully, but I've always wondered where IDCC would be going perchance IDCC took a hit with the cafc decision (its possible) and since LG decided not to renew, why would sammy feel they should be one of the only majors to be paying licensing fees?

This would set off another few years of legal battles with IDCC taking a real earnings hit. Even with sammy, 43% of 3G licensed doesn't seem something to brag about. mo.. nic

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: nicmar12/16/2011 11:40:56 AM
1 Recommendation   of 5181
 
Samsung drops iPhone 4S 3G patent attack

Chris Davies, Dec 16th 2011 Discuss [0]

Samsung has reportedly abandoned attempts to hound the iPhone 4S with 3G patents it holds, conceding that Apple is covered for their use of the cellular technology through their use of Qualcomm chipsets. The decision was revealed in the latest batch of legal sniping at the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany this morning, patent expert Florian Mueller reports, though Samsung also filed against Apple over a further four patents while the Cupertino company fired back with six suits of its own.

Samsung’s attempted use of 3G patents to cow Apple has been a particularly controversial strategy. Back in September, Apple accused its rival of manipulating open telecom standards, arguing that Samsung had in effect cheated in its handling of the 3G ratifications by failing to disclose that it held patents in certain technologies while simultaneously pushing for them to be included in the final standards.

In fact, Apple alleged, Samsung specifically attempted to change its licensing agreement with Qualcomm – which produces 3G modems such as those found inside the iPhone 4S – to exclude Apple from coverage. That strategy looks to have collapsed, by Samsung’s own admission, with Apple falling under Qualcomm’s umbrella license.

It’s unclear whether Samsung’s decision will rescue it from investigation by the European Commission over alleged misuse of FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) patent licensing. Apple claimed Samsung was seeking “outrageous” licensing terms not in keeping with FRAND requirements.

However, two of the four new patents Samsung has sued Apple over today are FRAND patents – the others are unencumbered ones – though details of what exactly they cover have not been revealed.

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-drops-iphone-4s-3g-patent-attack-16202855/

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: nicmar12/16/2011 12:13:36 PM
   of 5181
 
No IDCC cafc decision today.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: nicmar who wrote (5127)12/16/2011 1:06:31 PM
From: slacker711
   of 5181
 
but I've always wondered where IDCC would be going perchance IDCC took a hit with the cafc decision (its possible) and since LG decided not to renew, why would sammy feel they should be one of the only majors to be paying licensing fees?


Thinking about it, IDCC will have two shots to increase the odds of licensing Samsung. The first would be a CAFC win (and presumably subsequent Nokia licensing) and the second would be a win in the USITC trial that they began in July. Absent wins in one of those two cases, it is hard to see that Samsung will see things much differently than LG did this year. No company likes to pay royalties but I think it becomes much tougher to justify the decision when you see so much of the industry manage to either avoid paying royalties or pay a nominal rate (Apple).


Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: slacker711 who wrote (5130)12/16/2011 1:19:53 PM
From: nicmar
   of 5181
 
Agree slacker and that senario (possible pending non renewals) is a definite posibility when taking on an additional investment with IDCC. Some will not accept the Apple agreement saying there's more to the agreement, such as a volume kicker or no LTE patent coverage.

I believe it is what it is and Apple snuckered IDCC for the promotional benefit IDCC thought they had with listing Apple as a licencee, when in reality, I believe the Apple license has had a detrimental effect in licensing the other major companies.

Just because Merritt says he's happy with the Apple deal doesn't make it a good deal as what does one believe Merritt would say? "Dang!!, I really botched this one, big time." mo.. nic

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: nicmar who wrote (5123)12/16/2011 6:50:25 PM
From: CB02SD
1 Recommendation   of 5181
 
Nicmar, Non news releases, sure. Rumors, sure. Press releases from questionable resources, sure. And let’s make sure to include various investment boards as well. Cry wolf syndrome both good and bad until everyone is just numb. And one could also mention reasons for these, ranging from innocent to, I suppose out right manipulation. However 65.84 percent are held by institutional investors. Let go back and mix in the 14.8, as of last release of short investors. That leaves 20 percent left for the common longs or the float or the traders, anywhere from day on up. If a person could figure out what the traders are buying/selling by volume you may find out, Longs or individual investors if you wish are the minority in all this. Sure seems like a lot of pumping and dumping and questionable releases to try and shake those loose. Now the momentum players are a different group that can make a difference, however I’m not going to include them as a separate group, nor the hedge fund players or the option players as the point was to keep this a simple post. The longs, which I am one have no play in here, we hold. Were just sitting in the stands watch the game play out. To your point that this company will go lower without a catalyst could very well be true but it will be the other groups causing the issue and controlling the game. Longs are just holding until there is a reason to sell. Nothing to do until the company explains what is going to be happening going forward.

JMO

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: CB02SD who wrote (5132)12/16/2011 10:50:58 PM
From: nicmar
   of 5181
 
CB. Points well taken. I suppose I fit the same category as you being a long term holder for many years other than a futile attempt at options that cost me a few thousand on overzealously purchasing dec calls. I suppose the only positive in the calls is the tax write off. Lesson learned, sale or no sale. mo. .. nic

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: nicmar who wrote (5133)12/17/2011 2:45:16 AM
From: CB02SD
   of 5181
 
Nicmar, I rarely play options myself, so not the person to say anything good or bad. However as you mentioned, lesson learned, most likely a different lesson had they come in. They have their place, debatable if this is the best company too place them with. The long pauses between action being a negative for that. Then again that should be judged by the people who use.

If you have been a longterm holder than you have already received at least a partial win. Up 800 percent for the last decade.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: CB02SD who wrote (5134)12/17/2011 11:57:46 AM
From: nicmar
   of 5181
 
CB. Basically, I would like to see a final resolution as to whether IDCC will be sold or remain some form of an independent entity because it will free up some funds that I would love to invest in other depressed stocks. IDCC has a habit of keeping investors overloaded with stock in the company as there's always the promise of the years long resolution with nokia or some other infringement law suit. Addictive, IDCC is, but ya gotta love the process and stay with it. Oh well, just musing CB. mo.. nic

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.