are most certainly going on and a settlement benefits both.Nokia certainly has gained in perception they they might avoid a ban but they still might get one.Idc is virtually in the same position they were although a ban is more questionable as a push to get a Nokia settlement.Nokia wins on delay but if they are actually infringing as ALL the information seems to support they will have to pay.
The only caveat i can envision against Nokia paying is that somehow they are exempt due to some different technology or agreement with IDC.In both cases i'd think IDC mgt would have been remiss in how they have portrayed this litigation.I seriously doubt that this is the case and Nokia is simply pursuing the same litigation policy that has worked in the past to get them a better rate.
And it seems that few are in the habit of looking beyond immediate concerns (looking ahead beyond a few months for example).
My conservative target price for IDCC is 100 and my horizon is 2013-2014. If we settle with Nokia I will make it 125.
A loose summary of my reasoning in this meassage:
Yes jon good metaphor and congradulations.Here without actually knowing how each licensee is paying or how those contracts are structured we really can only speculate.
Indeed, in the recent reception of 77M and then 105m the speculation is rampant about where that money is coming from?In respect to those "prepayments",were they from RIM and Apple OR NEC and LG.We generally have ruled out most other licensee's because of the amounts.
Will those prepayments impact future EPS or could they be new revenues?How much discount was given?Will we recieve ongoing royalties in addition?As you can see,we can only speculate.
More pertinent to our ongoing discussion is the speculation relating to a Nokia settlement which might trigger a windfall of others?therefore the Nokia settlement might be a watershed and could really create a fourfold increase in shareprice within a year.Some here will stay focused,some will lose patience and some will just continue to try to confuse the issues,short,wannabelongs or just unhappy bashers.
Maybe this will be another good decision by you when you thought that painting was worth more?I hope we are right but patience is a virtue not easily acquired?All the best,Hannibal
Value is not always the same as the market. In a world where most longs think it is cheap and where most potential buyers don't think it is cheap enough, there is the middle ground where a small percentage of both think it is priced correctly or correctly enough. I bought a painting once for 1500 dollars because no one at an antique store wanted it and Sotheby's estimated it was only worth 300 to 600 dollars. The antique dealer knew I was interested so he jacked up the price to 1500. After doing some research I determined the painting was by the first known African American artist. I sold it for 100 times what I paid for it within a year. So the market price doesn't tell you everything, including intrinsic value, just as the buyers and sellers do not know everything about any given stock. If you can look ahead you might have an advantage over someone wrapped up in fear and greed, staring at trading patterns.
Idcc is worth exactly 21.72 at the present time, you can buy all you want under 22. I will sell you my shares for 30 today, that would be a 5 dollar bargain for you. I am just being facetious but that is how I look at stks, they worth what you can buy them for, the future is uncertain.
IdCC does have a value that has been determined by analysis.The projected value WITHOUT a Nokia settlement is still $35 based on current and projected EPS.
either you believe in IDC as a viable company to invest in and fully understand that litigation is part of the model for non payment, or you invest in a more visible company,like McDonalds?The rewards here can be great IF and WHEN IDCC gets these reluctant patent infringers corraled.The payoff could be four fold and certainly continually evolving!!
Merritt did certainly allude to ongoing negotiations and has since he stated this was "substantially settled".Of course, that didn't happen YET.
Review is not a certainty, but also the probability is high, as we can read in the transcripts that the ALJ thought this was going on beyond his immediate decision.
Merritt did allude to ongoing patents that were being added, that could clarify furthur our IPR.Note: patents take perhaps at least two years to certify so these patents were already in the process as perhaps IDC did know they needed continuing add- ons.The point being these add on patents weren't pulled out as an afterthought but were only just now available.I'm wondering whether the Commission, IF they review, will allow IDC to use these added patents purely as a clarification of the other patents?I think the commission can use them on a informative basis and get around an expected Nokia argument that they are new evidence and shouldn't be considered?
Merritt did downplay the significance of this "preliminary decision" and the shareprice certainly has suffered!No doubt..but the reality is actually NOTHING has changed?Nokia is pursuing their policy of litigation and delay while IDC isn't backing down from a fair settlement.
Is Nokia infringing?IMO..decidedly YES..Are they willing to settle?..decidedly YES..For a fair price?..decidedly NO!
I also bought 1000 shares on the way up - in hindsight I incorrectly weighed the risk of a negative outcome and decided not to buy 10 puts to protect my position. Obviously I should have, but even the media portrayed this as a shoe in for IDCC. I averaged down in the 20 range. So now my ave price is 26 and I bought 10 dec 22.50 calls which seem to be already doing OK. With the recent projections for the handset market IDCC will do very very well in the long term (3 - 4 years) not even counting Nokia. Better Luck this go round!
This particular discussion has nothing to do with IDCC "value". It has to do with assertions put forth as if they were facts. I own the stock which I foolishly bought on the eve of the ITC judgment. I still own the stock and hope that it will eventually rebound.