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.
L2V.
You mentioned two alternatives. I mentioned two others.
Although we're confident of IDCC's position, Nokia has objected to taking away their Phase I cash discounts, and awarding additional interest, in their plea for modification.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe the court can kick it back to the ICC for further information or consideration.
It can also be modified, or reversed.
O'Dog.
No need to get nasty about Yahoo. Most of those you are referring to are on Ignore by the regulars.
You have your shortcomings here on "Argument Central", to be sure.
Don't let your superior ability to dig out the news go to your head.
Now you're talking!
Bob.
If anyone can get to the bottom of the LU poster, it's Teecee.
In fact, we should have a conference call. LOL.
Sale.
I can vouch for Lefty.
She's a Yahoo regular, and also an attorney.
But we shouldn't hold that against her.
Sale. OT.
The Yahoo party will be in Vegas.
Not to bash the gun toten' pretty girls in Texas, but what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Loop.
It isn't that management hasn't tried to bring home the goods. Cripes. They're finally starting to act like a real corporation.
The problem is Nokia and other thieves have mugged them all along the way, and the police have done little about it.
Although most of us are confident in IDCC's immediate future, the gray hairs are starting to take their toll.
But hell! There are worse things than being acquired by QCOM, and then rooting for Paul Jacobs, or sticking your money under the mattress.
Buck up, old friend. There's always a prettier girl around the next corner.
Charlie.
If true, the $30 rumor would almost undoubtedly just be for starters.
But I wanted to point out that acquiring IDCC with $100 million in the bank, is far different than having $600 million.
Moreover, if most of that $500 million difference was "contributed" by our friends in Finland, a "Thank You" card would certainly be in order.
IDCC stock price should rise as various legal milestones are achieved, as it did with QCOM, which split four times since 1994: Three 2/1's, and one 4/1.
There is little doubt they could afford to up the ante, and still not give themselves a hernia.
Revlis.
I'm sure QCOM knows this, and that's the rub.
Are they willing to risk stubbing their toe before the right judges bring down their gavels in favor of IDCC?
I'm sure the finance staff and patent boyz in San Diego are continually updating their data, and are ready to pounce on a moment's notice.
But no one wants to prematurely risk throwing snake eyes, unless someone else starts the bidding, and leaves them no choice.
Sure makes for interesting days in KOP.
Nessco.
I agree.
I might also venture a guess that KOP welcome a buyout offer.
Not only would it end the endless string of litigation, but the top dogs at KOP would come out smelling like a rose.
When it comes to small companies, the rewards to executives are not in salaries and bonuses. They lie in options, and the possibility of a takeover, even though many are already small-time millionaires.
Kiko.
Lots of names have been floated, including CSCO, IBM, and even Nokia.
Sorry to be repetitive, but I'm hung up on the QCOM theory, because I believe the benefits to QCOM outweigh all others:
1. "Double payment" would be eliminated by those who license both QCOM and IDCC patents.
2. QCOM needs to shore up its 3G patents.
3. QCOM continues to be accused of excessively high royalty rates, and has now been accused of anti-competitive practices.
4. QCOM is entering a tough phase in renewing many licenses in 2006, and needs to add something to its current offerings.
5. There are many more companies claiming essential/non-essential patents for 3G, than for 2G, which seems to call for consolidation.
Unless QCOM does something to relieve the pressure, there is little doubt that it will continue, if not escalate.
Vtem.
I'm not the one to ask.
Maybe Nokia thought its chances were better in the U.K.
And I don't know what you mean, "Since UK is not in the system".
Loop.
So, the two countries are at odds on both "challenging validity" and "piecemeal" attacks, which enables Nokia to continue its royalty crusade.
This would seem to make a case for dismissal in Delaware, but it sounds too simple to be true.
I'm not contesting what you say but, if that's the case, why is Judge Farnan taking so long to make a decision on dismissal?
Given Nokia's determination to pound IDCC into the ground and hang QCOM from the highest tree, the prospect of a merger seems to loom larger every day.
But until the air is cleared in NY, Delaware, the U.K., QCOM will probably stand in the wings, waiting for the right time to make a move.
BTW, if QCOM paid $35 a share for IDCC (roughly $1.9 billion), and assuming the ICC award is confirmed at all levels, QCOM would come into about $500 million from Nokia and Samsung, or about 26% of the purchase price.
That would add lotsa fuel to the QCOM/Nokia lawsuit, which would please me no end.
Loop.
Are we in the same position, i.e., Nokia can challenge validity, in the 3G suit in the U.K., and also Delaware?
One wonders.
The decision was made in April 2005.
Would the appeals judges have made the same comments if they knew that the ICC was going to award IDCC $250 million in July?
The two cases do not deal with the same issues, but might have added more weight to IDCC's position.
Rox.
"Nokia has no choice but to fight the ongoing rate for those patents, especially at the IDCC declared numbers."
Any way you cut it, it certainly makes a case for a merger with QCOM.
Nokia and others would not have to pay "twice" with one-stop shopping and, you may agree, QCOM would like to have IDCC's 3G patents, which appears to be their current weak spot.
A few loose ends need to be tied-up, but it wouldn't surprise me to see such an announcement by QCOM (at the right time), once we get into 2006.
Mschere.
If Nokia says they'll work around IDCC patents after 2006, so be it.
But trying to invalidate every claim in every 3G patent is nothing more than an exercise in who can outlast whom in Delaware.
Like others, I believe this "We were absolutely terrified of getting sued by IDCC, and IHUB can prove it", is the joke of the century.
Although it originally set the stage for a royalty showdown with QCOM in 2006, the boyz in San Diego suddenly look a lot nicer than they did a few years ago.
I just spoke with the Delaware Court and talked with Debbie Brett, case manager.
If I understood correctly, Nokia's motion for a hearing has gone by the wayside until the issue of dismissal is decided.
Ms. Brett said this ruling was also necessary for a scheduling order, and might be dismissed in part, or all.
This means there is nothing going on with the parties at the moment, i.e., interrogatories, depositions, etc.
Although I mentioned that we had heard nothing for 8 months, I knew better than to ask when the ruling might come down.
Being a case manager for Judge Farnan has got to be one of the most plush jobs on the planet.
Rox.
Glad you found it interesting.
Maybe some day you could explain why a duly licensed company, which has paid nothing to a patent holder for five years, can suddenly run to a foreign court, and claim invalidity.
No harm, no foul!
OT.
Bob.
Yeah. When are they going to launch?
Loop.
Stop picking on MTS.
Smoke 'em, if ya got 'em.
Thanks, Jim.
Looks like there's a lot out there, depending upon Merritt's definition of "proven".
Yeah, Rox.
Give us the word.
Who's got the goods that Merritt is looking for.
Apparently Lucent never saw the contents of the 15 boxes, so it's doubtful that this triggered a settlement.
I'm still betting on Conan the Destroyer, and his bags full of sanctions.
LC.
His name is Peter Key.
One of our Yahoo posters is a lady attorney from Maine.
She believes the lawyers would much rather settle, than be the subject of a sanction order from the judge.
Although Lucent may not feel the same, in your opinion, does the threat of sanctions weigh heavily on the lawyers in this case?
Loop.
If the parties settled, could the judge still sanction the lawyers for both sides?
Would seem a bit unusual if they got off Scott free, by hiding behind an agreement.
SJR.
Tantivy's hands are also not clean. However, its actions do not appear as flagrant as Lucent's.
BTW, what did Tantivy hope the interoperability testing records would show?
SJR.
Are you saying that Conan the Destroyer suddenly came up with the missing documents, at the eleventh hour?
Piano.
I don't know. LOL.
I guess we should look for another move to a later date.
Amr.
I can only guess that a case management conference is similar to a pre-trial conference in the U.S.
The 2G trial has been rescheduled to November 5, 2005.
The 3G case management conference is April 2006.
The latest info. on the U.K. patent court wesite, shows the following:
The 2G trial was originally scheduled for April 7, 2005, and later moved to October 31, 2005. It has now been "refixed" to November 5, 2005.
The 3G trial is scheduled for a case management conference on April 3, 2006.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/files/section1.pdf
Any JAGfn members see this (From QCOM/Yahoo board)?
From the Yahoo QCOM bored:
IDCC in cross hairs- 3g +4g stronghold
by: rambodelldude 10/31/05 09:43 am
Msg: 575720 of 575734
IDCC a tasy morsel for some biggie.
JagFn says QCOM is interested.
Charlie.
They were right the last time.
Does that include any adjustment for the Federal dispute?
TIA.
Ronnie.
Have you completed your quarterly estimate?
Texb/Ghors.
Sure would be nice if one of you could be there when the "evidence destroyer" took the stand.
I know what you're saying. But I doubt that two trades at 200 shares in the 17's indicates that something is up.
The bid is still there at 18.09. Now bidding 1,000 shares, up from 800 shares. The Ask is 18.74.