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.
Mschere.
Nokia, its attorneys, and The Pekka, must be more than a little pi$$ed at this news release.
Instead of Mighty Q, Motorola, Nokia or Ericy chairing this Task Group, it's none other than our own Brian Kiernan.
Thanks, SJ.
A little light on a dark day.
Mschere.
Nokia will go to almost any lengths in its royalty crusade.
But I find it hard to believe they would fail to pay royalties to QCOM.
Maybe the next quarterly filings will provide the answer.
Dave.
I asked Vserf for a link, but he hasn't surfaced on Yahoo today.
I let my PACER membership lapse, and can't help.
Dave. I agree.
Although it means extra work for you, it would seem that following Nokia/QCOM is almost as important as following the many IDCC/Nokia suits.
TIA.
Lotsa talk that Nokia would never breach its contract with IDCC, but no one cares whether they breach their contract with QCOM?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Nokia shall answer or otherwise respond to Qualcomm's first Supplemental Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific
Performance no later than 20 days after the filing of the First Supplemental Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance."
From Vserf. Posted on the Nokia board:
What's this all about?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vserf. Can you post a link for your
by: laranger_0 (76/M/milford, mi) 09/12/05 10:37 am
Msg: 238959 of 238959
message on the NOK bored?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nokia is looking to weasle out of another contract, this time it's QCOM. Anti-Trust is comming Nokia's way
8/30/05 154 Stipulated Order by Judge Rudi M. Brewster: Nokia shall answer or otherwise respond to Qualcomm's first Supplemental Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific
Performance no later than 20 days after the filing of the First Supplemental Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal and record in the matter of Qualcomm Incorporated's First Supplemental Complaint for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance. (ryc)
[Entry date 09/01/05]
MTS.
Lucent keeps moving ahead, as is New York. But I keep wondering about Delaware.
Has the judge fallen asleep on the bench, or are he and his clerks busy, making sure there are no holes in a ruling to dismiss?
Other dates that are coming closer are the 2G and 3G suits in the U.K.
Loop. Agree.
If they're coming with the second Twin in a matter of days, there's no point in increasing guidance until all September revenue issues are locked-in.
Stay cool, Mr. Bill. This is not your grandmother's IDCC.
Mschere.
Fagan said it.
Merritt confirmed it.
Janet wouldn't back-off of the prediction.
And the good Captain has spent the whole day wringing his hands on this board, starting early this morning.
BTW, if they gave a week's notice that they we'ren't going to come through, that would certainly make things right with Wall Street, and we would have no worries.
Maybe you haven't heard.
There are still 23 days left in September.
Cost of capital.
http://teachmefinance.com/costofcapital.html
This joint filing wasn't scheduled.
Do you find it unusual?
Amen.
The Salvation Army reportedly gets more of your dollar where it's needed.
Walmart started out giving them $l million.
Ghors/O'Dog.
Thanks so much for the clarification.
Many of us have silently been wondering how the arbitration panel, the 7-member ICC legal team, and ICC Court can arrive at a bullet-proof decision, if they must silmultaneously apply contract language, NY state law, and ICC rules.
As usual, Nokia wants to cherry-pick all three, as long as it works to its advantage.
Let's hope the Supreme Court has cleared the air.
Corp. Agree.
Nokia keeps trumpeting their one (biased) dissenter, versus a total of 16 votes that were cast by all ICC participants.
IDCC should, but will probably not trumpet the majority decision of not only the three member panel, but the 7-lawyer legal team in Paris assigned to each case by the ICC, as well as the six member court.
By my count, that's at least 10 to 1 against Nokia, even if only a simple majority of ICC reviewers agreed with the award.
The judge is not there to second-guess the decision of the arbitrators, absent midconduct, fraud, bias, etc.
Nokia may owe about $320 million, including "punitive" amounts of about $20 million in lost discount for Period #1, and about $20 million in "additional interest".
Giving back about $40 million to Nokia would still leave about $280 million owed to IDCC, which can hardly be called a "win" for Nokia.
If the judge confirms, or modifies by $40 million, you won't find many shareholders who believe Nokia will finally give up and settle.
Sonic.
As an old boss used to say, "We'll jump off that bridge when we come to it."
Keep in mind: The G.D. contract; recent event with Siemens; expectations that IDCC will bear 3G Twins in the next 30 days; good signs with JPO/Matsushita.
I'd be delighted if IDCC signed SNE/Ericy, even if Nokia said "Play it again, Sam."
Nic.
If I were your daughter and had too many phones, I wouldn't give you my best either.
Why don't you test her by asking her to pick a different one: This time, blindfolded. LOL.
Nokia is fast becoming a joke in the wireless world, IMO.
Their new favorite word, "irrational" (which they obviously stole from other efforts to vacate awards) best describes the Nokia of the 21st Century.
Assuming they lose the 2G fight, the 3G battle will be one for the ages.
If Olilla's and The Pekka's actions weren't so pitiful, they would, indeed, be funny!
Mschere.
If Nokia can't get the court to vacate the award, it would appear their arbitration-gamble could well exceed $300 million, before offsets for delays in paying.
Take a crack at these "round number" estimates:
Basic award. $210 million.
Lost discount on "Period #1: $20 million.
Lost discount on "Period #2: $20 million.
Interest (5% P.A.) according to PLA for 2002/2005: (20%) $50 million.
Additional interest assessed (2.5% P.A.) for 2002/2004: $19 million.
Total $319 million.
Total: Lost discounts, interest and additional interest: $109 million.
I'm sure I missed something. But even if Nokia privately concedes that it owed the $210 million, try tacking on several millions more for arbitration fees, fighting the confirmation, and a 13 point drop in the Euro, and we're talkin' some real bucks.
Mschere.
True. And frankly, I hope they didn't.
If they failed to pay this obligation, it would be another slap in the face of the ICC.
Is Nokia digging itself into an ever-increasing, and embarrassing corner?
We should know yet this year.
Revlis.
Merritt stated previously that the $250 million did not include interest. And the $112 million apparently includes the lost cash discount.
We don't know the interest rate in the PLA, nor do we know the amount of "additional interest" assessed by the arbitrators.
However, the total of (1) all interest (2) lost cash discount for 2002/2003, and (3) lost cash discount for 2004/2006, would appear to be VERY substantial, and has really pi$$ed-off The Pekka.
You said, "Nok in its filing said they were penalized. I think what IDCC is arguing that even if that is true, the arbitrators had the authority to do so citing Mastrobuono."
Nokia may be talking about the "additional interest", and the loss of cash discount during 2002/2004, which was mentioned on August 20:
"O'Dog.
Yeah. Nokia always seems to want it both ways, depending on which way the wind is blowing, and whether its attorneys got a good night's sleep.
Although not earthshaking on the surface, the "additional interest" question may be significant, for what it implies.
Nokia argues that it was merely following the PLA in demanding the arb., and shouldn't be punished for doing so. However, additional interest appears to be a slap in the face, for deliberately causing a two year delay in resolving the trigger issue. Otherwise, why start a fight by deviating from the PLA?
And the decision to disallow cash discount appears to be a second slap in the snout.
I remember Loop saying, in effect, Nokia was not delinquent in paying 2002/2004 royalties, until the panel ruled that a trigger was pulled. That made total sense. But the panel apparently had enough evidence to rule otherwise.
If the court confirms, these two amounts could dwarf the legal fees Nokia is paying."
Mschere and Loop.
Let me put it another way.
Imagine this conversation between the judge and Nokia's boyz:
Judge: "Why is Nokia claiming fear of being sued, when you are doing all the suing?
Nokia: Well. . . .That guy on IHUB agrees with us, even though it was posted after we sued. I'd call that validation, sir.
Judge: OK. Pass that one for now, because it's not on point. Do you know what patents IDCC will have in 2007 for 3G handsets?
Nokia: Of course not. sir. New patents are being approved as we speak. Do you think we have a crystal ball, yer honer?
Judge: Good answer. And if you want to use mine, I must tell you it's been broken for the 30 years I've been on the bench!
Nokia: What does that mean, yer honer?
Judge: Simply this: Neither you, IDCC, nor I know which patents will be in effect in 2007, so I cannot ask a Markman for an opinion on patents that may or may not exist in the future. And since you cannot produce the specs on your 2007 phones, what the hell are you doing in my courtroom?
Nokia: But what about the validity of those 18 patents, sir?
Judge: Perhaps you should give me the name and phone number of your superior. I'm getting a headache.
Mschere.
Now you've muddied-up the waters, but good!
Normally, the patent holder sues the manufacture for infringement.
In Delaware, the manufacturer sues the patent holder, because it's scared silly it will be sued.
Sued for what? Certainly not for currently infringing, since it has a license.
And since no one knows what patents IDCC will have in 2007, how can a judge rule on future infringement?
Good question: What is Nokia's strategy?
If the case was straight forward, should they not have waited till their license runs out next year, then introduce their new phones, and see if IDCC sues?
I think I'm getting a headache.
MTS.
Why not call Janet?
L2V. Thanks.
Now, if Bob and MTS can decide who will go, our "reporters" could again outsmart CNN.
MTS.
Someone else will have to advise the name of the judge in the NY case.
Looks like you and Bobby could go together.
You could take notes, and he could heckle the Nokia attorneys, throwing copies of IHUB posts at their feet.
I don't really care.
But what the hell is an "In Service" day?
I just wanted to get the coveted post #124,000.
Dan.
I see no trades (15 min. delay).
Do they look like true transactions?
MTS.
Southern District Court:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/office.htm
MTS.
Good question, especially if you're the one attending the hearing.
I just assumed it would be public, since the court didn't state otherwise.
It' scheduled for 3 PM.
Bob.
Do you think you'll be able to attend the NY hearing on October 14?
To say that this could be an important day or IDCC, is clearly the understatement of the year.
I would be glad to contribute to your parking bill.
Bob.
The hearing is on October 14, at 3:00 PM. (Ugh).
I don't know where the courthouse is located.
Nite all.
Spencer.
Excellent catch!
And another "dropped ball" by the infielders from Espoo.
As one poster said earlier, Nokia's lawyers are experts at telling half truths.
Judge Lynn's ruling in favor of Nokia was mentioned in a footnote. But it failed to state that she was reversed.
I can't print it. But it's not hard to find.
Maybe so, but none of us can tune a piano. LOL.
It would be nice if someone like Bob (TWFG) attended the hearings.
He's often in NY and could give us a "Clarence".
It gets curiouser and curiouser, because they're scheduled to start at 3:00 PM.
If you're still out their Bobby, send up a signal.