IMMR

[Se7en]

Ascending triangle breakout on 4x average volume, also broke through the 200MA, bullish cross on the MACD! There's also a gap from May 06 to be filled just under 8$!
I'll be looking for an entry on Monday.

Thoughts on this one?




Sector:   Technology
Industry:   Computer Peripherals

BUSINESS SUMMARY   
Immersion Corporation engages in the development, manufacture, marketing, license, and support of various haptic hardware and software technologies and products that enhance users to interact with digital devices using their sense of touch. The company operates in two segments, Immersion Computing, Entertainment, and Industrial; and Immersion Medical. The Immersion Computing, Entertainment, and Industrial segment offers products, such as gaming, mobility, automotive, and 3D and Mechanical CAD Design. The Immersion Medical Segment provides medical simulation products, such as CathSim AccuTouch System, which simulates intreavenous catheterization and phlebotomy; Endoscopy AccuTouch System, which simulates endoscopy procedures; Endovascular AccuTouch System, which simulates endovascular interventions, including cardiac pacing and agiography, angioplasty, and stent placement; Laparoscopy AccuTouch System, a simulation hardware that can be integrated with third-party software for laparoscopic surgical procedure simulation; and the Hysterscopy AccuTouch System, which simulates hysteroscopy. The company markets its simulation systems to hospitals, colleges and universities, nursing schools, medical schools, emergency medical technician training programs, the military, medical device companies, and other organizations involved in procedural medicine. Immersion Corporation was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.

[guitarman]

Hi
I saw this move too.
First big move in a long time.
IMMR is due for a $90M settlement from Sony soon and news out yesterday was that they picked up a new customer (see below).

I've got some Nov 7.50 call options and I have been biting my nails lately!
I hope this is a big run!

Tactile Feedback in Touchscreens Enhances User Confirmation, Communication, and Control
SAN JOSE, Calif., Sep 28, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Immersion Corporation (IMMR), a leading developer and licensor of touch feedback technology, announces that the largest supplier of kiosks in North America, KIOSK Information Systems (KIOSK, www.kiosk.com ), is now offering Immersion's TouchSense(R) tactile feedback solution in its kiosks for the self-service and retail industries. Serving both North American and European markets estimated at US$1 billion and 193,000 kiosks* annually (77 percent using touchscreens), KIOSK's new TouchSense tactile feedback option significantly expands exposure for the technology. KIOSK will be exhibiting in booth #2000 and Immersion will be exhibiting in booth #407 at the Self-Service & Kiosk Show, San Antonio, September 28 and 29.

TouchSense components integrated into touchscreen designs produce tactile feedback in response to the user's press. For retail and self-service applications, the simple addition of a tactile cue may either help overcome user uncertainty or enhance the user experience. A tactile cue supplies unmistakable confirmation, encouraging more rapid and accurate data entry. By establishing clear communication, it also promotes greater ease-of-use leading to higher customer satisfaction. And a tactile cue increases interactivity and a sense of control, helping to create a more engaging experience to encourage continued use.

"KIOSK has built virtually every type of self-service application in every type of location and environment imaginable," explains Michael D. Levin, vice president and general manager, Immersion's Touch Interface Products group. "One of the reasons they are such a strong leader is that KIOSK is not only a manufacturer, but also a consultant in ensuring the long-term success of their customers' projects. KIOSK sees the value of our TouchSense system and will now be able to help its customers capitalize on tactile feedback technology for improving kiosk applications and the user experience."

*Kiosks And Interactive Technology, 2006, Summit Research Associates, Inc.

About Kiosk Information Systems ( www.kiosk.com )

Founded in 1993, KIOSK Information Systems is a leader in the design and manufacture of self-service kiosks. For applications including bill payment, human resources, music download, order entry, photo kiosk, public internet access, and ticketing, the company's innovative products have been delivered across numerous industries for clients including Borders, Citibank, Disney, FEDEX, McDonald's, Mercedes Benz, Pepsi, Sony, Wal-Mart, and the United States Postal Service. The company's processes allow customers to participate in design and development, which speeds time-to-market and reduces costly rework. Its ISO-9001 high-production manufacturing facilities in Louisville, Colorado and Larbert, Scotland provide typical delivery times for standard products of 3 to 6 weeks and custom designed product prototypes within 5 to 8 weeks. KIOSK products are UL and CE certified and manufactured using independent modules that can be serviced quickly and easily in the field.


Best
GMan

[Se7en]

Thoughts for a good entry here, 200MA(daily) or 50MA (Weekly)?

[amstocks82]

My Take Immersion v Sony the Appeal
Statement of Issues
Sony:
1. Whether the district court erred in denying judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law when claims 41-46, 49, 50, 53 and 54 of the '213 patent require decoupled and independent control of the frequency and magnitude components of perceived vibrations and Immersion's expert admitted, than in the Sony system the user will perceive vibrations that are not decoupled.

Immersion:
1. Whether the judgment of infringement of claims 41-46, 49, 50, 53 and 54 of the '213 patent must be affirmed when the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony by detailed test results demonstrating that Sony's accused PlayStation products use the claimed pulsing techniques to create tactile sensations whose magnitude is controlled independently of their frequency?

Sony:
2. Whether the judgment that Sony infringed claim 7 of the '213 patent should be reversed, where:
   a. the jury's infringement verdict was based on faulty claim construction in which the district court failed to limit claim 7 to require that each one of the plurality of actuators varies the frequency and amplitude of it's vibration; and
   b. it is undisputed that Sony's accused system has two actuators, only one of which can vary the frequency and amplitude of its vibrations, and, accordingly, under the correct claim construction, no substantial evidence exists to support the jury's verdict.

Immersion:
2. Whether the judgment of infringement of claim 7 of the '213 patent must be affirmed where: (1) the district court properly interpreted claim 7 to require than a complex tactile sensation of varying frequency and amplitude by produced by the combined effect of the plurality of actuators; and (2) Sony does not contest that it infringes under this claim construction?

Sony:
3. Whether the judgment that claims 14-17 of the '333 patent are valid should be reversed, where:
   a. the only asserted difference between the claims and the AT&T joystick involves whether the joystick discloses "rotating-mass actuators" and rotate an eccentric mass 360 degrees;
   b. the jury's validity verdict was based on Immersion's faulty construction of the language, "a plurality of rotating-mass actuators to create in combination a vibration" as requiring actuators that rotate an eccentric mass 360 degrees, as well as rotating mass that create vibration; and
   c. with the claims properly interpreted, the AT&T joystick discloses a plurality of rotating-mass actuators to create in combination a vibration.

Immersion
3. Whether the judgment that asserted claims of the '333 patent are not invalid in light of the AT&T joystick must be affirmed, where substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict of no invalidity because the jury could reasonably conclude that the AT&T joystick is ground-based  force feedback device, not a "rotating-mass actuator" device as described and claimed in the patent?

Sony:
4.    Whether the district court's finding of no inequitable conduct should be reversed or remanded where (1) the district court applied the wrong standard for determining materiality; and (2) after Immersion accused Sony of infringing the '214 and during prosecution of the related '333 patent, Sony showed the Cyberman prior art device to Immersion executives and shared Sony's belief that the Cyberman invalidated the claims, yet Immersion executive who was in a position to contact the Logitech Company that produced Cyberman because of his relationship with that company and was involved in the prosecution of the '333 patent chose to do nothing?

Immersion:
4. Whether the district Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting, following a bench trial, Sony's inequitable conduct defense to the '333 patent, where the court found that (1) the Immersion representative Sony accused of committing inequitable conduct did not intend to deceive the Patent Office; (2) the Immersion representative was not aware of the information alleged to be material prior art; and (3) Sony failed to prove that the alleged prior art was material where it offered no evidence of non-cumulativeness?

Sony:
5. If this Court affirms either the judgment of infringement of the '213 patent or the judgment of validity and no inequitable conduct of the '333 patent (but not both), whether Sony would be entitled to a new trial on damages where: (1) the amount of damages for infringement of either patent alone would be different than the amount of damages for infringement of both patents; and (2) it is impossible to discern the appropriate amount of damages for infringement of either patent alone from the jury verdict?

Immersion:
5. Whether the district court's permanent injunction should be affirmed, where: (1) Sony does not properly challenge the scope of the permanent injunction on appeal; and (2) the scope of the injunction was supported by the district court's finding that Sony continues to release new infringing products?

Sony:
6. The district court's injunction enjoins Sony from using and selling "the infringing Playstation system, including its Playstation consoles, Dualshock controllers and those games found by the jury to infringe." Sony does not believe that the district court's injunction is overbroad, but raises the last issue out of an abundance of caution. In the event that the district court's injunction is interpreted to be coincident in breadth with Immersion's requires for an injunction, whether the injunction is overly broad where: (1) Immersion contended at trial that the asserted claims were infringed only by the combination of a console, a controller, and a video game used together in a specific manner; (2) Immersion sought an injunction enjoining Sony from selling and using the individual components of the system, independent of their inclusion in an adjudicated infringing system; and (3) the district court, in discussing the permanent injunction (albeit several months before it issued the permanent injunction), stated that, to avoid the injunction, Sony would have to "remov[e] the software library" in the console and "disable[e] the vibration function on the controllers" and "disabl[e] the vibration function" in the games, when adopting any one of these three options by itself would result in a combination that does not infringe the asserted system claims?


Analysis Of Issues (Note: I'm not a lawyer just someone with shares in the company)

Issue 1 is the JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) ruling. Sony asked the court to rule that Sony's Playstation system didn't infringe on certain claims as JMOL.

My analysis is that the court will affirm. I noticed in a few appeals that I read that when the court rules as a matter of law, that the ruling gets reversed if there are complex issues that would require testimony, expert witnesses and the like to decide – in that case, the appeals court rules that JMOL is not appropriate.

However, in the reply brief, Sony spends a significant amount of time on this and Sony makes a slightly different argument. From Sony's reply brief:

"Dr. Colgate, admitted that, in the Sony system, not all of the perceived vibrations are decoupled. This is a legal argument, which rests on proper claim construction.
In response, however, Immersion argues, that "substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict." But Immersion's reliance on the substantial evidence standard is misplaced. Instead, this court must determine whether claims 41-46, 49, 50, 53 and 54 of the '213 patent require that the frequency and magnitude of the perceived vibrations – including both the perceived vibrations caused by the motors (i.e., the underlying vibrations) and the perceived sensations created by periodically turning on and off the motors – must be independent and decoupled. This is a question of claim construction, which this Court reviews de novo. "

Sony's first mistake in their description of what the claims must show: Sony writes that both the perceived vibrations caused by the motor (i.e., the underlying vibrations) and the perceived sensations caused by periodically turning on and off the motors must be independent and decoupled. In other words, Sony is stating that both (Perceived Vibrations) and (Perceived Sensation) must be independent and decoupled.

But is that what the claim states and is it even possible to decouple the control of the perception of vibration and how we perceive a sensation?  I think Sony's lawyer became confused when writing the above. What is decoupled is control over the magnitude and frequency. In other words, if the game controller issues a very fast series of pulses, all of which are done within 1/10 of a second, the person will perceive a fast jolt or pulse. Immersion's addition is adding a method that allows control of the magnitude of the jolt. So, to make it simple, Immersion's patent allows the ability to create jolts. The magnitude of the jolt is decoupled from how often the jolt occurs. Before Immersion, you could create jolts as often as was desired. Immersion patented the ability to not only create the jolts but to control how strong the jolts were with a simple technology.

Sony goes on to write that in Sony's PlayStation, the magnitude and frequency of the underlying vibrations are not decoupled as required in the claims. However, IMO, that is a factual matter for the jury to determine.

If the Appeals court looks at it the way I do, they will decide that the claims mean that the accused device must contain at least one vibrotactile unit and there must be the ability to control with a computer both the frequency of the jolts and magnitude of them. The control of the frequency of the jolts and the control of the magnitude do the jolts must be decoupled. If they decide that way, then deciding whether or not Sony's PlayStation infringes is a matter of "fact" for the jury to decide.  JMOL was not appropriate in that case.

Therefore, this decision should get affirmed (IMO).

Issue 2 is about claim 7 of the '213 patent and the claim construction related to it.
Immersion writes that Sony challenges the district courts construction for the final limitation:
"Transmitting said activating signals to said mass-moving actuators for individually activating each of said mass-moving actuators to produce a complex tactile sensation as a result of varying the frequency and amplitude of said vibration."

Sony thinks that the claim construction should limit claim 7 to require that each actuators varies the frequency and amplitude of it's vibration.

The '213 claim 7 follows:

"7. A system for providing a tactile sensation to a sensing body part, said system comprising:

means for generating said variable state signal;

a plurality of mass-moving actuators, each of said actuators comprising a shaft and an eccentric mass mounted on said shaft for transmitting vibrations to said sensing body part, each of said mass moving actuators rotating said associated shaft; and

a signal processor for receiving and interpreting said state signal to produce multiple activating signals and transmitting said activating signals to said mass-moving actuators for individually activating each of said mass-moving actuators to produce a complex tactile sensation as a result of varying the frequency and amplitude of said vibration. "

Looking at 7 and parsing it, it does not say that each actuator must vary the frequency and amplitude. Basically, "said vibration" which is the end result of the multiple activating signals and mass-moving actuators produces the vibration of varying frequency and vibration.

Therefore, I think this decision on issue 2 is affirmed.

Issue 3 is about claims 14-17 of the'333 patent are valid. Sony basically claims that the AT&T joystick invalidates Immersion's patent. However, the AT&T joystick pushes against the ground and does not produce vibration based on a rotating eccentric mass.  Sony writes, "c. with the claims properly interpreted, the AT&T joystick discloses a plurality of rotating-mass actuators to create in combination a vibration." Looking at the way the AT&T joystick "rotates" and how it imparts vibration, I think that the Judge's Markman ruling on the language is reasonable and the Jury's decision is reasonable.

I think on Issue 3, the court Affirms.

Issue 4 is the inequitable conduct ruling. On this issue, there was a bench trial allowing the judge to take evidence. The evidence provided by Sony was very little and comprised mostly of the idea that Dr. Rosenberg should have notified the Patent office of certain claims made by Sony. Dr. Rosenberg was not the author of the patent but even so, Sony said Dr. Rosenberg had the duty to investigate Sony's claims further and find evidence about whether or not there was other Cyberman prior art that existed. However, Dr. Rosenberg is not required by law to do that and was not being deceptive when he didn't do it. Sony lacked evidence to prove inequitable conduct and the Judge did have a bench trial on this, I think Immersion is safe and the decision is affirmed.

Issue 5 is about possible rulings by the appeals court and how the permanent injunction would be constructed and enforced. Sony would like the court to rule that if they took only one action, such as not sell an infringing controller that this should be sufficient for the permanent injunction. However, this is inconsistent with the Jury ruling. Each game sold is part of the infringing game system and many PS2s were sold that had the infringing controller. Therefore, every game sold that could be used for the PS2 increases the infringement. IMO, the Appeals court does not provide any guidance to the district judge on the permanent injunction that will be very harmful to Immersion.

Where I may have went wrong in my analysis:

1) I'm not a lawyer and my knowledge is based on reading a few dozen appeals that I scanned some of which I researched in more depth.

2) In two of the appeals I read, I think the appeals court made a mistake in their analysis – which means that they could rule differently than I think is logical – it happened two times that I found in my own limited research.

Impressions:

We are lucky that Sony was poorly represented at least from a "brief writing" point of view. Sony often uses the term that the court "MUST" do X If... or the Court SHOULD rule Y because....

If I'm an appeals court judge, I would not want to be told what I must or should do as it would be assumed that I would do what should be or must be done. What such statements won't do is to cause the Appeals court to rule in error. But they will challenge the court to examine carefully and somewhat skeptically everything someone tells them they must do or should do.

Sony's first brief was not well organized from a logic point of view. Sony's reply brief was much better organized. Both of Sony's briefs appeared to be very arrogant in tone.

Immersion's brief was well written, logical and easy to read. The logic in Immersion's brief as to why Sony made the mistakes was straight forward and easy to understand and in many cases showed that Sony left out of their brief information that completely contradicted Sony's points. In addition, Sony's briefs don't describe the technology in an understandable way, Immersion's brief does.

The tone of the brief or the fact that one is more logically organized than another won't be the deciding factor but every bit helps. The judges and clerks are only human. They must make decisions every day. Sometimes they make mistakes. Writing a brief logically means that the court is less likely to misunderstand something and make a mistake because of that.

Everything IMO, [email protected]

[amstocks82]

Immersion v Sony, Does Sony Lawyer Forget Arguments During Appeal?

Below are posted significant excerpts from the actual court proceedings where Sony presented their appeal to the appeals court. Some time stamps are included to help anyone who would like to listen find the comment. The recording is posted on the www.fedcir.gov web site at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oralarguments/mp3/05-1227.mp3

2:58
Appeals Court Judge:
".... this is a legal argument that rests on proper claim construction, even though you are not challenging the claim construction, and I don't think you cited any cases for this notion, and I wonder if you have any?"

3:10
Sony lawyer: "Your honor the answer to that is let me clarify our position. Our position is that we are not challenging the claim construction of tactile sensation. But given the gloss that Immersion is placing on it – Immersion is saying that you don't look at the underlying vibration. You look at the dominant vibration. The fact is that Mr. Chu I assume is going to use that chart in which he says lets look at the series of impulses lets ignore the underlying vibration – that is a claim construction issue. The question is under the proper claim construction is it proper to ignore the underlying vibration. To that extent it is a "de novo" question of law and only to that extent. "

(Clarification, Immersion contends that barely perceptible vibrations – the underlying vibration should be ignored and that it is the intended tactile sensation that is created by the device that is being patented. Note: The lawyer didn't answer the question about citing cases.)

3:54:
Appeals Court Judge
"But should not one of the parties have called this matter to the attention of the trial court at the initial stage of the Markman, I mean isn't this therefore in your view of the world, it is really a matter of claim construction. Why this issue wasn't resolved in the context of the Markman?"

Sony Lawyer, "Your honor, it is not resolved.
There is another issue that is not resolved and that is the rotating issue. The court declined to interpret it. The answer is this particular matter was not interpreted by the district court other than to say that the court agreed with with Immersion in terms that it looks to the dominant vibrations and in fact there is no discussion of decoupling at all in the courts 50b decision. The answer is that this was presented, it was debated by the parties and for whatever reason there is no resolution of this question. And to that extent, this is a de novo question of law and that is all we meant in our brief."

(Markman hearings are used to interpret claims, determine the scope of the claim, decide on the ordinary meaning of some words in the patents and put them in a form that the Jury can understand and make determinations on.

In the question of whether the underlying vibrations were important was left to the jury to decide. Sony wanted the Judge to rule on the meaning of vibration in ways that might have been helpful to Sony but the judge declined to do so. For the rotating issue, Sony wanted the judge to rule in certain ways to help them define an AT&T Joy Stick patent as "rotating". The AT&T Joy stick had a base that pivots or rotates right and left in order to orient it such that force could be applied in certain directions. The base cannot pivot or rotate 360 degrees. It simply turns the base right or left to orient a force in the correct direction. Immersion's technology is based on small rotating motors which spin an offset mass. The judge declined to rule on the meaning of rotating in this context.)

12:24
Appeals Court Judge:
"Let me ask you this quick question about claim 7. Immersion says, as I understand it,  that nothing in the claim language requires that each actuator create a vibration, with varying frequency and amplification and amplitude. Is that correct? "

Sony lawyer, "The only thing that is correct is that's what they say. I disagree with their position."

Appeals Court Judge:
"Because?"

12:46
Sony lawyer:
"For two reasons, and let me start with the second reason.
If you look at the origin of claim 7 – the clearest prosecution history establishes that we, I submit are right, um, the prosecution history shows that patent Claim 7 evolved from application claim 10 and application claim 1 which were ultimately were combined and in combining them the applicant said I am adopting all of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is significant because claim 1 said it called for an apparatus for providing a tactile sensation where each unit comprises, each unit comprises, ahh, and then it said a mass moving actuator for transmitting vibration, and so and so forth..., it used the same language which is in patent claim 7 and but it said it was for each unit. When they adopted, merged claim 1 into claim 10 and said we are adopting all limitations of claim 1 they are basically saying each unit has these limitations. And in fact if you look at the language of claim 7 the very last two words are 'said vibration' and the only antecedent for that is vibrations up in the upper part of the claim. And each one of those limitations talk about each of said actuators transmitting vibrations and each of said actuators coupled to said vibration – it takes it back to that early clause. It establishes I, I ah I  submit irresistibly that in fact you have got to have each unit performing the function, you can't merge the two, and in fact if you look at, and if you look at one of the claims, you will see claim 14 of the 333 patent, you will actually see that use the word vibration a combination in that case ah suggesting that in fact ah, they knew how to use the word combination when they wanted to use that word. "

(Interestingly the Sony lawyer never tells us what the first reason was even later in his rebuttal. IMO, the longer he spoke, the less understandable and disorganized his argument became. Did he forget what the first argument was and was it better than argument two?)

Other than the claim 7 argument during which Sony's lawyer appeared to forget what he was trying to say (maybe he didn't understand the argument either), Sony's main hope lies in whether or not the appeals court decides that the District Judge made a mistake in not defining to Sony's satisfaction "vibration" and "rotating". Should the district judge have better defined the terms vibrating and rotating during the Markman hearing?  The federal judge that made the decision didn't think so and Sony's argument about vibration and rotating didn't work well with the jury either. Will it work any better with the appeals court?

Current status of the case – waiting for the Appeals court to rule
If the appeals court rules against Sony, this could force Sony to stop selling the Playstation 2 and perhaps the Playstation 3 console, dual shock controllers and many Sony Games for Playstation. Oral arguments for the appeal were Oct 3. Next action of the court could be before the end of the year.

Note:  I believe that the transcription is accurate but caution readers to listen to the recording to verify and have included time stamps to make that easier. Everything in my opinion.

[ScottishTrader]

IMMR looks interesting here...  After that big gap up on the settlement with sony:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070302/immersion_mover.html?.v=1

IMMR has held up pretty well, and peaked its head above 9.10 short term resistance today.  Seems like a good low risk play, with a stop just below 8.80, risk on today's close would be 3.4%, with a first target of 9.90, although I think we could see the begining of a new uptrend here.

[David Randolph]

The first time I heard about IMMR was at TZOO's thread, when I read the following news and saw the video:

• Travelzoo Unveils World's First Interactive Advertising Campaign in an Airport
PR Newswire (Mon, Jul 9)

Then I saw that Sony paid IMMR roughly $120 M in a patent infringement lawsuit:

«During the quarter, Immersion and Sony Computer Entertainment concluded their patent litigation at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and entered into a new business agreement. In total, Immersion will receive a minimum of $152.2 million through the conclusion of the litigation and the new business agreement. Immersion has recorded $119.9 million of this sum as Litigation conclusions and patent license income, and $107,000 of this sum as revenue during the quarter, and will record $29.9 million as revenue and $2.3 million as interest income in future periods.»

Now I see that Nokia also licensed IMMR's technology:

• Nokia Licenses Immersion's VibeTonz(R) Tactile Feedback for Mobile Devices
Business Wire (Mon, Jul 2)

And there's more like this ... now, because I live in Portugal, I don't have all that much respect for patents and intellectual property (my wife worked at Portugal's patents and trademarks registration agency, and it's a joke). When I say "respect", I mean that a business based on fighting intellectual property infringement and selling licenses simply wouldn't work here, because justice wouldn't be able, or it would take 10 years or more, to enforce penalties to those that didn't respect the intellectual property.

But I know that in the US investors go absolutely ga-ga over this type of business model. Why? Well, because, as you know much better than me, intellectual property rights are a fact and reality in the US and the courts really work. Why the love for the business model? Because of its extremely high net profit margin. Look here, taken out of IMMR's 10-Q:



Wasn't it Buffet that said that the best business is to have a royalty on the growth of others?

Well, there's a lot more to say about IMMR, but the general idea is that the technology is awesome and huge corporations like Sony and Nokia are willing to pay for it. Moreover, the business model is based on selling a license and receive some money for each unit sold (I don't know how much at this point).

The company is a $490 M market cap and has $137 M in cash and almost no debt. The chart is extremely bullish (perhaps too bullish), but that's for a very good reason.

I still can't derive my valuation model for IMMR, because the big changes just happened, and the future won't be similar to the past. I need at least two more quarters to see the fundamental picture more clearly. So, my two primary motivations for buying IMMR are:

1) The technology is awesome and a true innovation, as we've seen at TZOO's video. And the touchscreen technologies are in high demand now;
2) The business model is one of those that usually boasts an extremely high net profit margin. The company may have, say, just $30 M or $50 M in revenues and still be worth more than a $1 B, because it's almost all profits.

So I say go for it, regardless of the chart being so overbought, since I feel the company is worth more than $1 B, and the current market cap is $490 M.

The trading plan is:

Buy IMMR, 6.66% of capital as always.

[David Randolph]

Considering IMMR's business model ...



... and the licensing deal made with Nokia ...

• Nokia Licenses Immersion's VibeTonz(R) Tactile Feedback for Mobile Devices
Business Wire (Mon, Jul 2)

... I would say IMMR will earn a % of each Nokia mobile phone sold using IMMR's technology.

There are about 1 billion mobile phones sold each year worldwide and Nokia has a 36% market share of the global market, so that means 360 million mobile phones a year. The average selling price of each phone is 89 €, that is, about $122.

The Court said IMMR should receive 1.37% for each unit sold by Sony using IMMR's technology:

«The Court further ordered Sony Computer Entertainment to pay us a compulsory license fee at the rate of 1.37%, the ratio of the verdict amount to the amount of sales of infringing products, effective as of July 1, 2004 and through the date of Judgment. On February 9, 2005, the Court ordered that Sony Computer Entertainment provide us with sales data 15 days after the end of each quarter and clarified that Sony Computer Entertainment will make the ordered payment 45 days after the end of the applicable quarter. Sony Computer Entertainment has made quarterly payments to us pursuant to the Court's orders.»

Say IMMR and Nokia licensing deal says Nokia must pay IMMR 1% royalty on all sales of devices using IMMR's technology and the technology gets to be used in say, half of the mobile phones sold by Nokia. That means 0.01*(360,000,000/2)*$122 = $219.6 M.

From this number I would say that Net Income for IMMR would be at least $150 M, and that should warrant a market cap of at least $3 B.

IMMR's market cap is $533 M now.

But of course, there are several risks to this outcome. Instead of 1%, the deal may be for just 0.1%. Or Nokia perhaps won't implement the technology. We don't know, but you can see the potential and the risks.

But, there isn't just Nokia in the world. IMMR already has Sony and Nokia (and some more minor players), but it is also making deals with BMW and others.

IMMR has 600 technology related patents and is determined in defending them, receiving money for its intellectual property.

I'll continue holding and studying IMMR.

[soxguy]

*DJ Immersion Cut To Underweight By Thomas Weisel >IMMR

.
(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
July 16, 2007 07:04 ET (11:04 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.- - 07 04 AM EDT 07-16-07

**Brought to you by Scottrader, a product of Scottrade Inc** More bad news.

[Amarens]

Does this news bring a stock down almost 15% 

Jakky, don't like starting off on a 6% loss 

Amarens

[David Randolph]

Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Kevin Hunt said the shares are pricing in "unachievable" growth opportunities beyond his already bullish assumptions and downgraded the stock to "Underweight" from "Market Weight."

He had "bullish assumptions" coupled with a "market weight". Now that stock was up a lot he downgrades it.

IMMR was down 16% yesterday because it had been up over 100% in less than two months. Another reason is I bought it, and stocks always go down immediately after I buy them

Six months from now, yesterday's drop will be barely seen in the chart, as the company will be worth $1 B, that is, $40. At least this is my view of the fundamentals.

I'll continue holding IMMR, despite the short term weakness.

[David Randolph]

The Main Portfolio is already losing 16.5% in IMMR, and is only holding the stock for three days.

It's always the same problem with high flying stocks, when one waits for a correction, it never comes, and when one buys, there's a correction.

I saw the little movie about the company's technology on its website and I must say that I wasn't all that impressed. But then I think that Sony paid $152 M for being able to use it and I go wow

I wonder how many companies will license IMMR's technology in the future. For the short term, I would really like to know the details of the deal with Nokia:

Nokia Licenses Immersion's VibeTonz Tactile Feedback

I'm going to investigate this issue for the upcoming updates (checking if Nokia said something about it), in the meantime I'll keep holding IMMR.

[berloga]

In at $16.8. Convinced my wife to buy. 

[Garoh]

Very nice company ...

for now we could see another low probably around 15.8 will be a good buy for me ...

It's aunbelievable too see a stock go down 16% just because of a stupid downgrade 

[nexta]

I am not sure - is Dassault Systems  a licensee of IMMR? They partnered with an India PLM solution developer:

http://www.tenlinks.com/news/PR/eds_tech...