IDCC
#Sure.
So as we mentioned there's two components of revenue, high level right.
There's the connection level revenue which we will give to Avanci and then separately there is the upper layer revenue that will come from the software and patent licensing with respective to those upper layers.
When we put out the goal on IoT revenue we did say that we were also going to help people along the way because that was a 5-year goal and we would need to give you milestones along the way to show that we are marching towards that objective.
During the course of the year that things that we will do our best to give visibility into will be things like customer wins on the software side and related revenue there, related to those wins.
And as I mentioned in my script particularly how we see that is opportunity scaling.
So we do have customer opportunities for example in the UK.
We have opportunities to our partners HARMAN for example we will provide color around those opportunities as appropriate to show that we are marching towards that goal.
I think the same would be true for how we will look at the Avanci revenue as it starts to come in at the appropriate time giving color as to what is coming in and how we can see that growing.
Again our intention is to give you as much granularity here as we can so that you can see that we are achieving the goals that we laid out.
Yes, so I guess the first thing I'd direct you to <UNK> is we disclosed in our MD&A the breakout as well as in our financial metrics the breakout between fixed and per-unit and that is the recurring components of that, because the past sales is broken out separately.
And so you will see the shift that occurred in the fourth quarter as compared to the prior quarter and even more so as compared to earlier in the year and the mix going more heavily weighted towards fixed.
So I think that would address the first part of your question.
Yes I think rather than give you the percentage I think you can pretty much get there by looking at the breakout on our financial metrics because we will have within the fourth quarter those components broken out because they are the recurring components.
They are the levels from existing agreements more or less carry forward into the next year.
Yes look it's not a surprise in terms of that particular dispute.
I think that what we always try to do and we get asked about what you think about XYZ's licensing practices and things like that and I would rather just talk about what we do.
And I think to some extent what we do actually gets brought out in some of these litigations as the right thing to do.
I will go back years and years ago, but it is still relevant to the Broadcom and Qualcomm disputes, where Broadcom actually showcased InterDigital licensing practices as the correct way to do it.
And we have had a number of situations either at the ITC in front of other regulators where practices have been validated.
And so I think my sense on that <UNK> is even though it is a big dispute it is not one that particularly relates to us because obviously Qualcomm's licensing business to a degree is much different than ours.
There is unique factors in that and those are factors that I think are going to get looked at and they are not factors that exist in our practice.
They are always interesting to watch.
But I do not think ultimately it has a big impact on what we are doing.
In fact, the one thing I would say is the timing is interesting in that once we settled with Apple that dispute began and whether I don't know this for a fact, but just guessing is whether one of the things that Apple will point to is its agreements with us as comparison to what it has with Qualcomm.
That actually would be a very positive thing if that were to happen.
Thanks.
Good morning.
Sure.
I would say that it continues to be a very important activity at the Company.
I think that the strategy is a pretty well understood strategy at the Company in terms of what were going after, which is good because you've got everyone lined up at the Company, you know exactly what you need to look for, and exactly what a good fit would be, and not worrying about things that would be bad fits.
In terms of the opportunities you actually have two different kinds of opportunities.
One is as a result of Hillcrest there is certainly an opportunity to go deeper on sensors and sensor fusion.
That's one choice we have and certainly our radar there and capability there in terms of an acquisition would be much enhanced based upon the Hillcrest team because they are going to know that space really well.
And there certainly opportunity to go after other areas of deep competence and we can do those in two ways.
You can either acquire something where it is all ready an established position, obviously pay a little bit more for that.
Or you go after areas that you believe will become pervasive and that is a little bit more of a bet, but the benefit of that path is it tends not to be as expensive because there is still value to come on there.
The thing I like about the M&A strategy and the reason we are very excited about it is it leverages the customer base, it leverages our business model, it leverages our historic practices here which have been very, very valuable.
We are not trying to use M&A to turn this into a different Company.
I like this Company a lot, I think were in a really good position and I think we do a really good job, I just want to do more of it.
And so in terms of timeframe, Matt I'd say look, it's like anything else.
I mean we are doing a good job on the Hillcrest integration.
We certainly have the capacity and capability to do something if something were to come across our desk today we could do it, there's nothing that prevents us from doing that.
The key is finding the right one and I would say we are pretty active in that search.
