Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hey, I have no facts at all. Maybe I haven't followed this thread as well as necessary, but I thought Revlis claimed the ALJ limited the Rebuttal to "validity". Peace.
Maybe the ALJ had already "seen and heard enough" on the issue of infringement, and was only undecided about "validity", rendering rebuttal on the issue of "infringement" a waste of time?
When the "stay" is lifted, the Court will issue a new Scheduling Order, setting new dates for close of Discovery,Witness List Exchange (including disclosure of "experts"), Final Pretrial Conference, and Trial.
I predict that IDCC will proceed on all tracks - ITC to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Delaware,possibly new actions, and continuing negotiations. Different teams will be working simultaneously.
Mickey,
I have no idea what the volume and/or price action will be on Monday, nor any other day. And since I'm an investor, not a trader, only dynamic business and market realities will affect my continuing decision to hold this stock.
Apparently, you feel some compulsion to post, even when you have nothing that is fact based to say. If you listened more, and spoke less often, you might avoid embarrassing displays of ignorance, like your multi-point pop assertion, which was pulled directly and ceremoniously from your backside.
Best of luck,
Jeff
I'll take that as a compliment, Mickey. Incidentally, nice call on that multi-point pop today. At least you're consistent.
Are you truly so narcissistic and foolish to believe that your endless pumping, or any analytical/critical thinking by others, affects the stock price in any meaningful way?
That's not an admission that the rate is reasonable. Rather, it merely states that their patent misuse defense factually has nothing to do with royalty rate demands.
The rulings of validity and enforceability, from the same ALJ whom this thread chastises for also ruling non-infringement, has value only before the ITC.We can be certain that Nokia will ask the Commission to review those two findings.
,
New complaints can be filed indefinitely. The downsides are attenuation of time, and the danger of being perceived as a serial litigator, rather than an industry partner/enabler.Time is our enemy, and Nokia's ally.
And Mickey, with all due respect, I think your recurrent chant of unbridled dreaming and speculation is nothing short of self-deception.
So your argument is that IDCC now has improved its bargaining position, by virtue of the "no violation" ruling? I think that's more pie in the sky.
What a BS comment. First, I take no pleasure in others' pain. Second, this pain is mine, too. I'll be losing real money in a few hours, just like you.
What you call "doom and gloom", I call different perspectives that should be respected. If you really needed a lesson, tomorrow will teach you that it's prudent to read and consider varying points of view, provided they are "informed".
FRAND - not validity,essentiality, enforceability, nor infringement. It's a newspaper account, for goodness sakes.
Apparently all previous discussions went over your head, so I'll try one last time. The QCOM v NOK ITC case dealt only with GSM/GPRS/EDGE IPR. Qualcomm makes no royalties on such IPR,unless they are in multi-mode with 3G, thereby triggering royalties. They never had to sue Nokia for infringement of any 3G CDMA nor UMTS/HSDPA IPR. They selected several GSM/GPRS/EDGE patents as collateral foreplay, so as to not risk an unexpected loss on their "family jewels". IDCC placed certain 3G patents in suit before the ITC, and unfortunately lost. Until/unless reversed,or Nokia is licensed, this loss goes to the core of InterDigital's 3G licensing efforts, and will hurt.
Trial judges do not factor in the sensibilities of the parties,nor other extraneous irrelevancies, when determining what are the proven facts in a bench case, and then applying the law to those facts.
I never said IDCC was "stupid" for placing 3G patents in suit. Fortunately, Qualcomm never had to.(The U.K. blurb you cited proved my point. Those patents were GSM/GPRS/EDGE, not CDMA nor WCDMA.)
The case was an equity action in Delaware Chancery Court, wherein Nokia was attempting to litigate the meaning of FRAND. It was not a patent lawsuit, where validity, enforceability, and/or infringement were at issue.And, it was Nokia who filed the FRAND action.Qualcomm never asserted specific CDMA nor WCDMA patents against Nokia, before the ITC, nor in U.S. District Court.
The mark you hit was questioning the integrity of the ALJ, and of the process, neither of which was appropriate.
You're kidding yourself, Revlis. Rationalizing.Don't blame Judge Luckern for your mistaken "belief" that IDCC couldn't/wouldn't lose. Since you're not an expert in patents, nor in litigating patent claims, and the pithy parts of the evidence were hidden from public scrutiny, how can you say what a neutral and detached ALJ would conclude, based upon the record? IDCC lost a bench trial. While not the end of the case or the world, unless they can sign Nokia in a hurry, future licensing and revenues are uncertain. The market hates uncertainty, as tomorrow will make painfully clear. But don't cry corruption, ulterior motives, nor ineptitude. One party loses in every trial, and this time it was InterDigital.That is what's meant by "litigation risk".
Rich, the odds of reversing the ultimate conclusion of "no violation" favor Nokia. It is universally true in the justice system that the appellee (the party who won on the previous level) more often than not continues to prevail after all appellate remedies are exhausted.But as many and the company have pointed out, at issue in this ITC case are only a small fraction of IDCC's 3G patents. Therefore, leverage and market reaction will favor Nokia, and exert great pressure on IDCC to reach a licensing agreement.Institutional shareholders will likewise be all over management to get a deal done.Until Nokia is signed, no pressure can be exerted on Ericsson, Alcatel Lucent, and Motorola, let alone Huawei, ZTE, and others, to negotiate their own licenses.
Because appeals are slow and uncertain, and the market will suppress this stock during their pendency, I think the most likely scenario involves an early settlement with Nokia. The sooner, the better.
olddog, do you know the % of reversals by The Commission?
Bingo, Nicmar. They lost over several meaningless GSM/GPRS/EDGE patents, and never put their 3G and CDMA IPR at risk.Nobody has ever paid them a dime for GSM/GPRS/EDGE, unless in multi-mode with 3G, and there it is the 3G that results in royalties. And yes, LTE was also included in their 15 year license, as well as WiMAX.
And, which part of my point did you fail to comprehend?
The problem with comparing the QCOM v Nokia litigation,to that between IDCC and Nokia is that Nokia's victories over Qualcomm had nothing to do with 3G nor CDMA patents. Qualcomm never had to sue Nokia to inforce 3G or CDMA IPR. IDCC put several of its 3G patents in suit, and exposed them to litigation risk.
I read the Nokia PR to be communicating to InterDigital that it's time to substantially reduce their demands, if they truly want to come to terms. Institutional shareholders will be applying pressure to get a deal done, so the stock can be allowed to recover, and other existing and potential licensees won't be hopelessly emboldened.
Congratulations to Bulldozer, and all who protected their long positions with options. Litigation is always uncertain, and the "can't lose" crowd is always exposed to this kind of event risk.
In the recent CC, Rosenberg said Amkor and Tessera have an arbitration clause, which mechanism will resolve their licensing dispute, which involves a royalty true up claim. Therefore, since Amkor is licensed, Qualcomm is protected.
Wishful thinking.
Wasn't that patent licensed in 1994, in the IDCC/QCOM settlement, not in the Fall of 1999?
Jim, your point is well taken. With a liquidated damages award in hand, there was no need to significantly discount same, if InterDigital's leverage were anything like board consensus suggests. That also begs the question of why our focus is on whether a deal will be reached, rather than the terms of such a deal.Personally, I have no doubt that Nokia will sign a license with InterDigital, but I have serious doubts as to the length,covered technologies, fixed fee v per unit royalties,and other specific terms that may be involved.
Data was correct, if he characterized the QCOM v NOK ITC action as "a flyer". No CDMA or WCDMA patents were asserted, only several allegedly applicable to GSM/GPRS/EDGE. Since QCOM is paid no royalties from anyone for those technologies, unless multi-mode with 3G, they had nothing to lose. It was a collateral attack in a game of three dimensional chess, and presented no downside to QCOM beyond attorney fees.
Zip, if IDCC gets a deal similar to what Nokia gave Qualcomm, the market and I will be ecstatic. That certainly would far exceed my expectations.
Gee Mickey, I hope you're right, because that would mean Nokia would have to accept any terms and rates demanded by IDCC.I guess when the inevitable deal gets announced, we'll get a sense of IDCC's demands. The structure of the deal - length, technologies covered, fixed rate versus per unit royalties, up front money, period of forgiveness,cross-licenses, etc. - will tell us how InterDigital views the commercial value of its patent portfolio.
Actually, litigators are like firemen, except the court sets the dates when the fires need to be extinguished.
It is not just the quality of the licensees that is important, but the quality of the licenses.
Mickey, the "computer needed licenses" you reference will be computed on the wholesale cost of the wireless module, at best, not on the cost of the computer. I think you're expecting some unreasonable bonanza.
Thanks, M3S. I failed to notice that Nokia had also filed objections. One can only speculate on who got what support from the Staff Attorney. I agree with what appears to be the majority of posters, that a settlement will be announced prior to decision day.
So, the Commission Investigative Staff favors Nokia's position?
Nicmar, royaties are computed based on the wholesale (not retail) price. Also, the previous poster understated Qualcomm's deal. In addition to ongoing per unit royalties (at a rate that has been variously speculated by different analysts) on 2G/3G/4G infrastructure and handsets, Nokia paid $2.5 billion in cash, assigned valuable 2G/3G/4G patents to Qualcomm, and agreed not to assert any of its considerable patent portfolio against Qualcomm. Comparisons between Qualcomm's bargaining power, and that of InterDigital, are unfair to both. Patents are not like barrels of oil. Their commercial importance and value vary tremendously on a patent by patent basis. The companies, in arms length negotiations, with the best engineering and legal advice available, determine the relative market values of different patent portfolios.(Other than self-proclaimed patent expert Revlis, no one on this or any other message board is competent to make individual assessments of patent value, that differ from the deals that each company has leverage to sign.)