we've been around since 3 1/2, 4, 4 1/2. where were you? you don't know anything about our activity with this company, yet you purpose that somehow we were "wrong"
"wrong" about what?
are you referring to IDCC's current share price? which of the persons you mentioned predicted that this would not happen?
you're good at asking questions that you don't supply answers for, even though you state you're involved in research (your claim is that "not enough information is present to make a valid assumption")
1)you state that you know little about IDCC's technology because IDCC has provided you little by which to understand. if you have trouble understanding the technology and IDCC's contributions i suggest that you call IDCC and discuss it with them. or attend one of their up and coming conferences
2)there is nothing you've stated which has changed IDCC's position in the 3g world; their position remains intact
3)is there anything of worth that you can offer which directly proves that IDCC's future revenue path for next year will NOT conincide with IDCC's minimum revenue growth predictions of 20% given their rate of renewal growth this year (over 80% from the previous year)?
4)even while IDCC hired 60 additional engineers this year already, their cash position increased (not counting upfront payments) by 15%. how can you juxtapose that adding another 80 to 90 engineers, with a 20% increase in revenue and interest earned on current cash, will not be more than enough to suffice their development efforts?
5)Intl.Data has predicted handset sales growth to range in the 30% range for TDMA/GSM for the next year. Since the majority of IDCC's current licensees are seeing handset growth rates in excess of IDCC's projected 20%, how do you conclude that IDCC will NOT be able to meet their minimum 20% revenue growth projection for next year?
6)IDCC has stated they expect at least 5 new licensing agreements by 2002, or the end of 2001. these licensing agreements would be considered "in addition to" IDCC's 20% projected growth. how do you interpret that an expectation of adding licensees is somehow "negative"? is it "negative" because you thought you'd see them yesterday? did someone lead you into thinking that the licensee agreements would be signed already? how do you know that agreements are not already signed and are waiting for addtl agreements to be configured before public presentation?
7)IDCC has clearly stated they are working with a specific chipset manufacturer in order to develop chipset production plans. What about this statement concerns you in regard to IDCC's future? Each time that IDCC stated they were working with a chipset manufacturer in the past (the two ASIC providers for the Ultraphone project, LSI Logic for the first BCDMA version, and TI for the second version) they delivered. Is your concern that the revenue generated from this relationship will be no different than the revenue generated from the TI arrangement? Do you know the difference bw the TI arrangement and the current state of 3g affairs relative to chipset plans and productions?
8)did you not listen to Nokia's CC yesterday regarding "partners" and Nokia's belief that they will lead in 3g both in data applications, infrastructure and handsets? Nokia stated that they "carefully selected their partners for 3g". They also stated that the "first versions of 3g" will not be successful. Does Nokia's statements regarding leading and partner selection sound like they don't know what they are doing in the 3g arena?
9)IDCC stated they will receive renewals from their licensing partners on GPRS handsets as well. IDCC's licensing partners in Japan are getting into the GPRS/GSM production business. Don't you think that IDCC's 20% growth rate is conservative in light of the Asians' entry into the GSM/GPRS fields? Did you know that TDMA is now growing in China - even before the introduction of CDMA? It's a small start, but it's a start. Even so, CDMA also holds a renewal future for IDCC.
i suspect that IDCC's most recent fall is about about Ericsson. some so-called outside attornies who don't specialize in technology interpreted the SM agreement to be negative without knowing all the facts in the case. they make assumptions based on a false interpretation of the underlying technology involved relative to the SM's comments.
this Ericsson case says nothing about IDCC's involvement with Nokia in building Nok's entire TDD suite.
Italy has stipulated that operators MUST develop 3g networks by August of 2001 in 26 cities in order to retain their spectrum licenses. these "spectrum licenses" include 3 5mghz TDD allocated users. the operators MUST deploy TDD technology to this designated spectrum. these operators don't have to deploy FDD vs. TDD. they simply need to deploy "3g to 26 cities". TDD is the least costly form of deployment and would satisify the govt.'s requirement. for this reason we see Nokia working with Italia is developing "3g WCDMA networks". WCDMA is not ONLY FDD. It is also TDD.
The UK is no different. The UK has a somewhat longer deployment timeframe going into 2002.
What is it about these future paths of revenue production goals, partnering, technology claims and renewals you don't understand?
The stock price will take care of itself when IDCC delivers on its plans. There is nothing we know that would keep this company from not delivering. One successful chipset design is enough for a small company - just one. yet IDCC and their partner are working on multiple designs - multiple air interface designs.
As NOK stated yesterday, they are the ONLY company working on a Tri-Mode interface chipset. Not even Q is doing that. NOK's WCDMA plans have both a FDD and TDD interface built-in. IDCC claims that their IPR strength lies in principally two areas: (a) data, and (b) bi-modal, tri-modal interface. don't you find it less than coincidental that since IDCC's strengths are in bi-modal, tri-modal iterface that NOK would make such a statement? NOK has not made such bi-modal claims in the past.
some of us have a zit on our face. the only way you can see the zit is to look in the mirror. otherwise, the zit is not visible. the answers are so close to all of us that they are sometimes missed without careful review. |
