I am not a patent expert, but I am not aware of any obligation on the part of patent owner to license its patent. On the other hand, antitrust law is very broad and "constraint of trade" could conceivably be applied to coercive or restrictive behavior with respect to deployment of patents. This is what the DOJ is looking at right now.
except for people who own aria....just curious lind...hypothetical...say aapl didnt want to license the nortel patents to another company for competitive purposes...is there any law...legislation...etc that would force them to ?
Friend, the articles to which you refer all site a report by an analyst at Jeffries...the only person to use that specific valuation range. I've read it and it's a thoughtful report. That said, the valuation range was purely hypothetical and depends on several assumptions regarding the attractiveness of the IDCC patents and extensive extrapolation of the Nortel values.
As a stand alone company, the market valued IDCC at $40 (and that was before the market fell off a cliff). If you add a 25% control premium to that market valuation, it gets you to $50. The wild card, of course, is the strategic value of the patents to specific parties...not the value of IDCC as a going concern. Based upon what I have read and the surprisingly high valuation of the Nortel patents, it is conceivable to me that the strategic value of the patents might be worth additional $40 (double the going concern value...that's huge)...making the whole thing worth $90.
I saw one analysis that calculated the present value to AAPL of the perpetual savings from not having to pay patent royalties associated with the IDCC patents. It was a huge number, but do you really think AAPL would pay its entire savings to IDCC shareholders? Of course not. AAPL would pay the smallest suset of those savings that would get the deal done.
There are a lot of dreamers on this board. The same kind of folks you see in biotech penny stocks that might just have a cure for cancer. Even though their stock trades in single digits, they keep discussing its multi-hundred dollar potential. I always feel a little sorry for those folks.
There are many speculative things here. I think we know that IDCC has put itself up for sell. We know that Google has been approached and Samsung has been asked to consider a bid also. We can speculate that Apple has their eyes on this process and perhaps others do to.
When it comes to valuing a company, well this is once again speculative, but it has many analytically identifiable component to it. Especially when a market price of a nortel has recently been identified. Valuing the patents will also give an estimate of what the patents pending are worth and perhaps even the talent pool of engineers. The cash on hand is straight forward and so is the estimated revenue stream from these patents. So valuing the company is doable, but has subjective attributes.
Where the compete uncertainty comes from is how much if anything a company will bid and if it will be enough for IDCC to accept. That part is completely in the air.
But a fair valuation I will stand behind is in fact 116 to 180 per share.
x ray...calling for a buyout...calling for a short squeeze...and believing what you read...all add up to squadush...people know alot more than me...but u know what i still go with my own instinct...thats why they call wall street the street of dreams...ive seen sure things fall thru...it happens...
I have already read at least 3 articles which put the value of the Patents, patents pending, revenue stream, staff engineers, and cash on hand at a range of 116 to 180.
Now I am not sure if the articles were written by 3 different authors, but if they were, then there are 3 people who's opinions I can trust 20X more than yours.
Why should I do that? They are going to expire worthless next Friday. All I'm trying to do is point out that IDCC is a good position...even if the unrealistic values you folks keep throwing out there are not realized. The better informed you are, the more likely that you will be profitable.
It happened before with another company with high tech patents...and IDCC has been described as much better than that...so why can't lightening strike twice?? Why do you say this is "hype". These patent lawsuits aren't hype...its HUGE sums in legal fees...and it may get worse.