Intercede Share Discussion Threads

[fft] 13/10/2009 03:51

igoe,

excellent article. good find. Be interesting to see what happens after sep 28th when the extra submissions are filed. if the case agaiisnt IGP is dismissed entirely, there should be a rerating - esp with that contract win from Q8. I dont think i have ever read such a "happy" contract win RNS before !

[looby loo] 13/10/2009 01:34

Thanks for all the useful info igoe.

A little snippet on Sharecast, for a change. Nice to see today's news is actually getting around and that people are appreciating IGP has around £4m in the bank:




"Intercede has a contract to provide identity cards for three million citizens and visa holders in Kuwait. The identity and credential management software supplier worked in partnership with VeriSign and HID Global. Intercede has £3.91m in the bank."

[igoe104] 13/10/2009 00:58

Lets hope one of our partners will be involved in this.

[rambutan2] 12/10/2009 22:55

for those who enjoy a good legal read.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp: oct 05 to dec 08...

[glasshalfull] 12/10/2009 20:33

Thanks again igoe. Very useful article which confirms the strength of IGP's argument.
Keep 'em coming please :-)

Regards,
GHF

[accumulat0r] 12/10/2009 19:57

237gmoney, LOL! #1655: " Barometrics or what ever they were called "

;o)





The rumour about Bartronics was doing the rounds in May of last year:




At that time, IGP shareprice was the same as it is now; around 45p. But Bartronics shareprice was around 200, as opposed to 170 now.

According to:



Bartronics Market Cap = 4,909 million. I'm assuming Bombay Stock Exchange shareprices are quoted in Rupees. If so, Bartronics Market Cap is equivalent to just £67 million. If we take the £50m figure you mentioned as a snip for IGP; Bartronics could have probably managed that last May, but I'm not so sure it's feasible now.

[accumulat0r] 12/10/2009 19:50

I too am amazed at the lack of share price movement today. At least a load more rocket fuel's been poured into IGP's tanks today, to send the share price into orbit ... at the appropriate time. Whoooooosh !!

[carly2] 12/10/2009 18:03

Thanks igoe - both for your reply and all the really helpful digging you do.
Your article was the briefer 'summary' to the one I saw - but whilst the judge finds in favour of IGP in an number of points, there doesn't seem to be an all out winner at this stage - hopefully the further submissions on 28 Sept will do the trick.
By the way, I am amazed at the lack of share price movement today - the RNS gave such optimism for future work - and we are up 1/2p!!
Best wishes all,
Carl

[igoe104] 12/10/2009 17:45

Looks like the kuwait team which came to the uk was very impressed with igp and mr parris.



"Intercede MyID was a key component in enabling DIYAR to design and deliver the Kuwait National Identity Program using the most up-to-date standards based products and services. Kuwait now has a reference system for other countries seeking to deploy large scale public sector identity programs."

Looks like alot more business will be coming igp way.

[igoe104] 12/10/2009 17:05

YEP, its looks like ActivIdentity are paddling up sh@t street with-out a paddle.

its actividentity who should be worring about paying out.

[wjccghcc] 12/10/2009 15:41

Nice find.

[igoe104] 12/10/2009 14:58

This WILL MAKE IT CLEAR FOR YOU CARLY.



USA
September 18 2009
A series of antitrust cases has arisen over the last ten years in the context of standard setting, where a party who participates in a standard-setting process has a patent that is infringed by the standard but does not disclose that patent until after the standard is adopted in the marketplace. This activity, referred to as a "patent ambush," has been the subject of a number of Federal Trade Commission actions and private litigations in which an alleged infringer attacks the enforceability of the patent at issue and claims the patent owner violated the antitrust laws via the nondisclosure. Companies participating in standard-setting organizations (SSOs) that require disclosure of relevant patents should be cognizant that any nondisclosure, even if not done deceptively, may lead to the loss of patent enforceability. Deceptive nondisclosure may additionally lead to antitrust liability.

A ruling out of a federal court in California last week in the case of ActivIdentity Corp. v. Intercede Group PLC illustrates this risk. ActivIdentity is a member of an SSO that developed a standard for remote application management of smart cards. ActivIdentity also holds a patent that covers technologies for remotely updating smart cards under the SSO's standard. It sued Intercede for infringing its patent by using the standard. Intercede then filed patent unenforceability and antitrust counterclaims, alleging that ActiveIdentity had an obligation to disclose its patent before the SSO developed standards that the patent might read on, and that ActivIdentity failed to make that required disclosure.

The court cited the Federal Circuit's 2008 decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. and explained that "[a] claim for unenforceability can be based on a patent owner's waiver due to failure to disclose its patent rights to an SSO." Importantly, the court noted that the nondisclosure need not be fraudulent. The court also cited the D.C. Circuit's 2008 decision in F.T.C. v. Rambus for the rule that a monopolization claim based on failure to disclose to an SSO must allege that the failure to disclose was deceptive and that but for the nondisclosure the SSO would have developed a different standard. The court found that Intercede had alleged sufficient facts on these elements to sustain its counterclaims. (ActivIdentity Corp. v. Intercede Group PLC, No. 08-4577, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2009))

[carly2] 12/10/2009 13:14

great RNS - good to see how the various parties, including IGP, are working together to get a solution that is cost effective and more straightforward to roll out.
I was looking at the Actividentity Court Summary on the internet over the weekend - IGP submitted the additional information for the further submissions to be reheard - but I am totally confused as to what determines who wins the case -there are a few cases where the judge accepts IGP - and conversely where IGP are denied. Does anyone know how many of the arguments (monopoly, unenforceability etc etc) they need to win to win the case?!
Best wishes all

[pyman] 12/10/2009 13:04

agree that the dollar is looking vunerable but given the reserves in far east and middle east it will fair better than the poor old £.

[felix99] 12/10/2009 12:15

I wouldn;t worry about the dollar going kaput. Won;t be for a bit yet and I expect the £ to go even more kaput against the dollar in any case - which is what matters most

[237gmoney] 12/10/2009 11:16

Ah but the dollar is about to go kaput soon so would be wise to deal in Euro's if anything....once the middle east stop paying dollars for oil the dollar will crash. But then the middle eastern countries do have 2.1 trillion dollars in reserves so I guess they dont mind throwing it away on ID projects at the moment. Hopefully IGP can invest their new found gains wisely...

Only problem with todays announcement makes IGP even more attractive to any newcomers wanting to take the company out. Im sure Barometrics or what ever they were called will still be interested in IGP as this company will be a snip at around £50m.

[pyman] 12/10/2009 10:51

furthermore: most of intercede earnings must be in dollar or other currency. With pound set to fall further over time this will only add to EPS.

[pyman] 12/10/2009 10:49

court case cant be bothering verisign or kuwait gov too much as they now proceed with this project!

[arthurly] 12/10/2009 09:40

yep, well done igoe. Anyone of you experts willing to have a stab at what a contract like Kuwait, would be worth ?

[237gmoney] 12/10/2009 08:45

2.88m people in this contract. that has to be worth a pretty penny??? If IGP can pick up a few more of these, especially in that region, things could be looking up....Is this factored into the price? Like the guy said from the AGM, once the legal case is cleared we could be on for a re-rating?

[wjccghcc] 12/10/2009 07:51

Likewise. Well spotted igoe.

[glasshalfull] 12/10/2009 07:36

Yep, makes nice reading and thanks to igoe for flagging a few days early.

Regards,
GHF