Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lance Bredvold who wrote (3556)	1/23/2000 8:47:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

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.

To: Lance Bredvold who wrote (3556)	1/23/2000 9:11:00 PM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Lance, I just wish one of you guys would pick up the phone and call IDC and ask them about the patents. We as IDC investors believe what we are told by management regarding the patent portfolio just as the Q investors believed their management. Darrell has been quite helpful regarding patents just as Gregg was to the Q investors. Most of us don't even have a clue about patents and even those who do aren't sure. We have been told that IDC has essential IPR in all of the 5 standards and although that might not be good enough for everyone it's good enough for me. You guys also don't think to much regarding the Ericy case but those of us who have followed it do. IDC settled with the Q years back in a patent issue so it's labled an extraction. You say bandwidth is a red herring and the whole world is looking for an answer. Brian Kierman of Interdigital is a bright young engineer and has been with the company 15 years. Him and the other engineers that work there surely must think something of the 800 patents IDC holds or common sense tells me they would work elsewhere. With 2% un-employment in this area and every telecommunications company hiring they could easily move on. Yes I have posted on the Q board on a very rare occasion and spoke with Gregg Powers on several occasions. The fact remains that many of us still believe we will be rewarded for our patience. If not we will all be PIE eaters.

To: Lance Bredvold who wrote (3556)	1/24/2000 12:27:00 AM
From: Bux	Respond to of 5195

Lance, thanks for your level-headed and honest input regarding investor board dynamics. Incidentally, this business of IDC is broadband and QCOM is narrowband is a red herring as far as I can tell. IMHO, you are right-on here as well. Many seem to believe that since Qualcomm has only commercialized CDMA in 1.25Mhz bands (to fit in the available cellular spectrum) that the 5Mhz CDMA proposed for 3G will leave them in the dust. The other belief many have is that IDC's CDMA patents are the wideband equivalent of Q's "narrowband" CDMA patents. IMO, this is false. Q's patents aren't bandwidth specific and there really isn't much difference between a 5Mhz implementation of CDMA and a 1.25Mhz CDMA system except the channel is wider and the chip rate is raised to match. The underlying building blocks are the same. I'm not a radio-engineer but it appears that IDC's CDMA patents are not bandwidth specific either with the possible exception of one patent which describes a method for overlaying a broadband CDMA network over an existing TDMA network. I think that IDC's CDMA patents apply equally whether the techniques are implemented in a 1.25Mhz channel or a 5Mhz channel (or any other bandwidth). Other sincere perspectives welcome. Bux