I suppose it is a matter of perspective. The beginning portion of this editorial regurgitated the unconfirmed, speculative timelines that were "leaked" by sources from previous Bloomberg/Reuters articles. Personally, I am not a fan of authors expressing the method and timing of any bidding process as if it were confirmed.
The middle portion included a nice, unique description of IDCC and the business model.
While the last part was a needless listing of other patent companies sprinkled with a small stock performance graphic.
Overall, I found it quite coincidental that a few days after expressing that some of these writers are paid by the number of views - that an IDCC article would be published with 16 additional companies referenced. All IMHO, of course.
| 