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: w molloy who wrote (3747)	2/4/2000 12:34:00 PM
From: Wayne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

I appreciate your perspective. I've been fascinated by the debate between the two camps on this thread. A really excellent discussion on various aspects of a situation that is murky, technical, and hard to predict. I'm not qualified to judge much of the information. But it seems that equally good arguments can be made for the idea that IDC is a diamond in the rough just waiting to mature and conversely that it is likely to fail to capture whatever opportunity it has and to ultimately be an also ran. Without the knowledge to judge the issues myself, I've found myself feeling strongly both ways as the debate has ebbed and flowed on this thread. At present, I guess I feel that IDC probably has a significant opportunity and ought to be rewarded, but I have a hard time feeling confident enough that they will truly capitalize on it to make more than a token commitment to the stock. The thing that keeps me involved is the position they appear to be building in 3G. If in the end they are an essential part of that specification they should do well in spite of whatever other weaknesses they may have. I was wondering if you would disagree with this point of view?

To: w molloy who wrote (3747)	2/4/2000 2:08:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

w molloy, thanks for taking the time to double-check the claims being propagated on this thread. I'm afraid if it weren't for people like you, many more naive investors would invest before they fully aware of the difference between fact or fiction and opinion or hype. You bring much needed balance to the thread and have stuck with it even though your words have been ignored, twisted around and your character and motive has been assaulted. If IDC's most esteemed boosters are Darrell Smith and Jim Lurgio, who only seem capable of selectively presenting the facts, representing opinions as facts and avoiding meaningful dialogue, instead preferring unsubstantiated rhetoric while avoiding the issues that are most important to the potential steady growth of IDC's royalty stream, then why would a rational person follow these jokers lead? Why aren't the analysts climbing over one another to cover this dynamic company? Are they concerned with future investor lawsuits? Have you ever seen an analyst initiate coverage with a "sell" rating? Why do even IDC investors characterize IDC's PR department as "wallflowers"? Could they be protecting themselves from shareholder litigation down the road or did they hire "public relations" specialists who are shy? The latest IDC booster has started a campaign to "educate" investors about patent law, a highly specialized field that patent attorneys spend years learning about and yet still disagree with one another. Maybe this crash course will provide courage to new IDC investors. I find it interesting that before Qualcomm became the gorilla it is today, there was much patent and IPR discussion but it was of a different nature of what I see on the IDC board. The most obvious difference was the most knowledgable QCOM boosters advised that patent law was too specialized to gain much meaningful insight from the patents themselves unless one is a patent attorney and understands the technology, a very rare combination indeed. Instead, participants were advised to look at the royalty streams and who was paying them. I was very heartened to discover that every major player (except Ericcson) had signed on and the royalty stream was growing steadily (except for quarterly lumpiness). Additionally, Qualcomm had produced a bona-fide wireless standard that was actually being deployed and was growing rapidly. Only after two or three years did the share price start reflecting this. This is not at all a plug for Q but a real-world example of how this sort of thing can play out. In my opinion, even if IDC is successful in getting their IPR recognized in a 3G standard and if that 3G standard is widely deployed and if that IPR commands a substantial royalty then the royalty stream is still years away and because of the secretive nature of licensing agreements the share price may not track the royalty stream until the royalties are visible on the quarterly statements. Of course the dramatic success of Qualcomm should accelerate the share price as the licensing agreements are announced (should all of the above if's be met). Sure, it would be great to be in IDC at $5 but I would argue the news that has propelled it into the 80's and back to the 30's is overblown, even at this point. IDC remains a highly speculative investment and investors must use caution to make sure the speculative nature is not diminished by the IDC boosters who often make an investment in IDC appear to be a "no-brainer". I know these questions aren't pleasant and many don't have definitive answers but successful investors do not push aside the tough questions but demand answers that satisfy the "rationality test" even if those answers are "that is an unknown". Only then can the true risks be assessed. Bux