Lance,
You don't get it. Bux and W. Molloy ask questions that indicate that they haven't even bothered to look at the SEC filings. That's just a matter of friggin courtesy.
Look at how Molloy stubbornly keeps on repeating that stupid linkage between the $3 million recurring royalty stream and the 350-400 million TDMA/GSM installed base when he knows damn well that IDC only has 22 of the possible 60-70 licensees and is involved in the ERICY lawsuit. A simple read of the last 10Q would reveal that recurring royalties (9 months)increased from $500,000 in 1998 to $3.8 million in 1999, with $2.9 million in the 9/30/99 quarter alone. And we have to put up with Bux defending Molloy's understanding of a basic licensing agreement involving upfront payments and per unit royalties? These two are a bumbling tag team comedy of errors unwittingly exposing their lack of objectivity or even critical thinking. And that is driving down the quality of the posts here.
Licensing and strategic partner revenue for the three month period ended September 30, 1999 includes $3.4 million in new licenses, $4.0 million related to development efforts for Nokia and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. ("Samsung"), and $2.9 million in recurring royalties. Licensing and strategic partner revenues for the three months ended September 30, 1998 consisted of $2.2 million related to development work and $112,000 in recurring royalties.
For the nine months ended September 30, 1999, 96.5% of our total revenues were derived from licensing and strategic partner activities. These revenues consisted of $42.7 million from new licensing agreements, $9.8 million related
to development activities for Nokia, Alcatel Espana ("Alcatel") and Samsung, and $3.8 million from recurring royalties. During the same period in 1998, licensing
and strategic partner revenue accounted for more than 89.7% of our total revenue and consisted of $48.1 million from new licensing agreements, $6.5 million from strategic partners and $0.5 million in recurring royalties.
Look, IDC is not for everybody. It's turnaround investing that requires experience and multiple skillsets. What TDMA vs CDMA is proving is that superior economics tend to trump superior technology because inferior technology can always narrow the performance gap if it has economies of scale and time to market dynamics working for it.
I believe the widely held notion that the irrationality of CDMA fanatics like Bux and Molloy toward IDC can be traced to the fact IDC has fixed and mobile TDMA and CDMA patents that are generating more interest within the industry because IDC is willing to respect the 3G Patent Platform consensus.
IDC has no debt, $80-$85 million in cash, a co-development deal with Nokia, TDMA/GSM/WCDMA patents that are producing revenues that are trending up and fixed and mobile assets that many are interested in developing as part of the effort to create alternative sources of CDMA technology. The continued denial of that reality is going to hurt some people more than others.
The fact that Bux and Molloy both questioned Bill's posting of an innocuous list of originating points at the IDC primer should give you some idea of the pettiness motivating these two. Take Bux' response to my post regarding the Motorola lawsuit. Jealousy? Or the rational definition of a legal action as another form of negotiation? That's not quality thinking at all. And we have to keep on responding to poor quality like that?
Why don't you do us all a favor and help these guys pack up their QCOM vs IDC garbage and take them back to any one of the 8, freaking 8, QCOM boards.
Gus
P.S. There is a wealth of news and commentary in the media -- primarily in Europe and Asia -- that indicate that the consensus behind the 3G Patent Platform is solidifying instead of fragmenting as many predicted. You decide if this is good news or bad news for QCOM. It doesn't affect IDC because it has TDMA and CDMA patents. |
