« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: arb award (bim)

By: bim24 in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 23 Aug 13 11:20 PM | 256 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications
Msg. 46908 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 46907 by Rakitno)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Rak

I will be more than thrilled if that's the case. It kinda sux that we had to take an earnings hit for the past 2 years without getting anything more out of what was originally owed... simply b/c the customer disputed the agreement and invoked arb. Pegatron was nice b/c we got a huge chunk of interest. You would think that IR can say yes or no to simple question confirming the PR vs cutting and pasting the PR in the reply email.

Guess we will find out soon

as far as finding out who, I wouldn't hold my breath on that... we had numerous times in the past where got some big chunk of cash and the company never disclosed who it was from.... or when we did "audits" and got sums that were greater than 10 percent from the quarterly revs, and still did not get disclosure.



- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: arb award (bim)
By: Rakitno
in IDCC
Fri, 23 Aug 13 11:12 PM
Msg. 46907 of 48237

Bim, read the press release one more time ... it says that the panel determined that InterDigital was entitled to the ROYALTIES sought by them and the ROYALTIES are at the RATES specified in the agreement ... ROYALTIES include the volume variable which you are uncertain/concerned about.

Again, in the press release InterDigital mentioned the $52.6 million ... why even mention it (and such an exact amount) if they did not win and plan on recognizing all of it which they were already paid too?

I've asked IR numerous questions including how many arbitrations were currently active while quoting their own disclosures and still would not get an ideally exact answer ... it appears to me that IR's marching orders are to only recite and reference public statements only ... it's unfortunate but a reality we need to live with ... again, what is more curious to me is that they still have not mentioned the name of this company.

The press release and referenced excerpt below:

 The panel determined that InterDigital was entitled to the royalties sought by the company under the arbitration at the rates specified in the technology license agreement. The licensee under the agreement had paid the disputed amounts under protest and, as of June 30, 2013, the total deferred revenue balance was approximately $52.6 million as reported in the company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013. 


« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next