Interdigital Communication(IDCC) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 354.11

-4.8%

3:02 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: w molloy who wrote (3757)	2/5/2000 11:30:00 AM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (2) of 5195

Molly, I gave you a total of 275 million in licensing revenues plus I had a few I couldn't remember. Is that so far from 300 million? I don't think Darrell should be put on the cross for not having an exact figure. Lance was right too about IDC refunding some revenues to Siemens. IDC refunded 5 million to Siemens so Samsung could join the consortium so take another 5 million off my figure. Speaking of exact I did provide evidence that recurring revenues were exactly 2.9 million for the 3rd Q and I noticed you never mentioned I was correct. Finally if you can't realize that the lumpy licensing revenues are caused by the ERICY versus IDC suit your missing a lot. There are many and I mean many companies that are waiting on the results of this very important case. Just look at the value that came to the Q when they humbled ERICY. Consider the fact that this case started in 1993 waited for the Mot case and is now coming to a head. Considering that ERICY one of the largest in the world is contesting IDC's patents the company was very fortunate to license anyone after 1993 but they did. By taking up-front payments it has kept IDC alive an well because ERICY and the rest thought IDC would go belly up. Just the mere fact that IDC claims to have essential IPR in all 5 standards should tell you IDC isn't going away. Add to that the fact that all the patents in question in the ERICY case have been sent back to the IPO for reexamination and have been approved just like the Q's patent were it makes IDC's chances in court look very good. The jurors this time don't have to establish the validity of the patents as that will be established from the testimonies of the expert witnesses and decided at the Markman hearings. All that's left is for the jurors to decide if there was infringement or not. My final question to you would be would ERICY spend all the court costs for seven years to try and invalidate patents they didn't infringe? If you can answer yes to that then you do have all the answers.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next