The analyst is merely quoting VHC dogma, which insists on comparisons with QCOM.
I'm assuming most people here on both sides of the fence are familiar with VHC's operating history so far. If you're serious about being long or short this stock for a period of over a month, take a few minutes to read QCOM's history, and see how the two companies match up.
VHC's path is through litigation (more comparable to TSRA, if anything), as opposed to QCOM's approach of putting millions into test & development infrastructure before becoming a core provider of 3G licenses.
VirnetX's path is not through litigation. That's just about keeping the infringers honest and paying their dues, which are going up as they drag it out. VirnetX's path is licensing and royalties with 4G LTE Advanced release 10.
It's unclear to me which company you've been following. Aside from MSFT, VHC has not generated any revenues (unless you're counting the JV they had).
Aside from the current set of litigations, there hasn't been a whiff of potential licencing revenue, despite the CEO's promises over the past two years.
The earlier point was that QCOM did much (much) more than just point and whine to get their licensing deals. The path took time, patience, and a ton of R&D money before they started signing major deals.
Forget the public stock aspect of VHC (ignore the stock price for a second). It's unclear why any operating company would think that that other companies would give away multi-million dollar contracts for free.
All I'm saying is that the QCOM reference is absolutely inappropriate. Even TSRA, ACTG, IDCC have had shorter litigation to license timeframes.
If you guys look at the actual patents VHC holds, you'll realize that the 4G hype is something promulgated by the CEO, and assisted now by his aspiring bankers.