|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
Re: Patent Values... are unknownAs I posted in msg# 62671, it makes no sense to do any type of comparable quantitative analysis of the patent sale to Intel with any other reported patent sales.
I believe the same logic applies whether it is someone saying the price per patent is too low -- or -- the price per patent was abnormally high. The knife cuts both ways. Because IDCC has decided to provide very limited details on the sold assets, I can understand why Bill might want to throw out a Q&D example to silence the naysayers. Nevertheless, it's nothing more than an example and offers little insight into the true value of what has been sold. The facts as I see them: * IDCC has been publicly promoting the idea of selling non-core assets since the start of the year. * According to a 1/31/2012 report from "The Deal Pipeline", IDCC was looking to sell patents that were not providing any significant value to licensing. * Several reports and publications identified infrastructure and 802.xx patents as the non-core assets that were being shopped around to various purchasers. * IDCC is looking to accomplish more with their patent sales than just to receive money for non-performing assets: + They are trying to motivate licensees (existing and potential) to come to terms sooner rather than later. + They are trying to create a valuation catalyst for a stock that has come crashing back to earth from its highs the previous year. + They are trying to potentially swap out surplus patents with patent acquisitions that might add diversity to their existing portfolio (add value to the licensing program).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
return to message board, top of board |



















