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.
Yeah. I was thinking the same thing.
A perfect opportunity to juggle the books, and he passed it up.
I can almost feel the pain from Espoo to Milford, Michigan.
Methinks his auditors laid down the rules.
Question for Jorma:
Your earnings were only off by a penny.
The estimated ICC award was $250 million.
You had $483 million reserved for IP infringement, and we can't think of any large disputes, other than IDCC.
Why didn't you reverse some of the difference, so you could soften the reaction to 2Q earnings, and avoid a $2.00 drop in your stock?
Are you trying to tell us something?
Nokia will stop giving guidance in the future.
Well. . . .That's one way to avoid missing revenue and profit targets.
The increase in sales apparently came from discounting prices.
Similar increases may not be in the cards in 3Q, so it looks like Jorma is battening down the hatches.
"Nokia said it sold 60.8 million phones in the period, up from 45.4 million a year ago.
Sales in China were up 76 percent, while
NORTH AMERICA remained Nokia's WEAKEST market, with a 22 percent drop in sales and 6 million phones sold."
About 3,000 shares traded at $13.81, on 8 separate transactions, all at 17:01.
In the same time frame, two trades were made at 14.52 and 15.50, for a total of 300 shares.
It's now back to normal, at 17.85.
Corp.
Either Nokia is lying through its teeth, or they truly want the court to approve "Design-Around" phones.
If they're being truthful, Nokia will need to wrap-up Delaware soon, rather than two years or more from now.
Based on comments by engineers/lawyers on the board, I find it hard to believe that Nokia could design the new phones, produce and test prototypes, get a favorable court decision that the phones won't infringe older and newer patents, and launch an advertising campaign to meet the crucial 2006-Xmas selling season, which is only 17 months away.
If they're not being truthful with the court, I'll see 'ya in two or three years.
A repeat of Sam Steven's May 17th reply to my email, concerning the movement of the UK suit from April to October:
(Stevens is a UK Court Services official).
"This was done at the request of the parties. I am not sure of the specific reason as generally we do not get to find this out."
If Nokia uses the UK argument, IDCC should stuff this email down their throat.
Jim.
There's little we can add to what's already been said.
Still, Nokia has yet to lose the prepaid discount.
If they fire the first "shot" on August lst, it could cost them $42 million in discount, and near $50 million in interest (Assuming 9%/per year), for a total of about $100 million.
Nonetheless, I find Nokia's comment fascinating:
"InterDigital said it was informed by Nokia that Nokia will file a motion to vacate the award and POSSIBLY file a motion to stay the award."
That's why I asked Ghors if IDCC was "required" to make such a statement. Maybe Whizzer wants to comment.
Seems strange to see lawyers use "street language" that (1) telegraphs their intentions (2) might be revealed to the public, and (3) has an odor of indecisiveness.
i.e., "We want you to know that Jorma is REALLY pi$$ed. So first, we're going to smack you in the snout. Then we MIGHT POSSIBLY give you a knee to the groin!"
Although I have no doubt they might mean what they say, I'll still have to see it to believe it.
Jim.
About sales audits in license agreements?
IDCC has an audit clause in some of its agreements.
Without the right to audit, a license agreement has little teeth.
Ghors.
Was IDCC "required" to say in the SEC filing, what Nokia told them about opposing the arbitration ruling?
L2V.
Nice response to Wireless Week in providing the human side of the business.
BTW, if Loop is out there pecking away at a draft of
"the letter", he might want to start with your words:
"Patents do not grow on trees".
Rayfer.
Yeah.
Every time I sell a stock, I always watch it to see if I made the right decision.
Then, I go back to the message board and predict that the stock will drop a couple of dollars.
It's called playing with yourself.
Nic.
Does it seem strange to you that Nokia was willing to pay "something" before it demanded arbitration, but ended-up saying "You Amerikans charge too much!"
After the Award, they said to the ICC, "You Frenchies charge too much too!"
If they were willing to pay something, they knew the trigger was pulled. Yet they fought this lie for two years, under the guise of merely exercising their rights under the license agreement.
I keep waiting for F&J to make this point in one of its filings.
Nic.
That's what my wife said, when I explained it this morning. LOL.
Mschere.
In one sense, we should take pride in being the recipient of so many intercontinental missles from Finland.
But, if this battle was going on between Nokia and an opponent of equal size, Nokia's actions would be more obvious to onlookers.
For example, if Nokia sued Qcom in Texas, NC, the UK, and Delaware, and then fought to reverse a loss in a two-year arbitration of its own making, no one would question that Nokia was running scared of potential patent infringement. Further, leaving a trail of roadside bombs, as it raced to keep one step ahead of Qcom's lawyers, would leave an ummistakable stink in the minds of Wall Street biggees.
Granted, Nokia is also betting on either putting IDCC out of business, or out-lasting patents that begin to expire in 2006, or both.
However, this only supports Data Rox's theory that:
"the motive for Nokia's continued push back on this award is more based upon their analysis of intersection/infringment of our 2G GSM patents in their products and the relative worth of those patents to the cabal companies."
And, I might add, intersection of 3G patents, as well.
Bottom line: Despite the pain, there has never been a time when I've been so proud to own stock in IDCC.
Mschere.
Some believe that, since the confirmation action comes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that 30 days is standard for Nokia's response.
Ghors mentioned this yesterday, citing certain passages of the FRCP, but did not mention 30 days.
I couldn't find his reference, but maybe O'Dog can.
Mschere.
Still, one wonders what the ICC is thinking.
They obviously saw the dissenter's warnings before issuing their decision, as did the two other panel members.
Further, the 7-member team of case lawyers in Paris also saw the warnings. But a majority apparently prevailed, and handed down the decision.
Now, confidentiality comes into play:
Article 6
Confidentiality
"The work of the Court is of a confidential nature which must be respected by everyone who participates in that work in whatever capacity. . . . "
IDCC was extremely careful to follow the confidentiality rules in its latest filings, while NOKIA MAKES ITS OWN, and blabs about the dissent for the world to see.
Were I the ICC, I would register a complaint with the ICC office in Helsinki.
Mschere.
More than a little surprising. This guy is apparently saying that, although the decision was carefully crafted by the ICC, it may not be enforceable.
"raised significant issues regarding the enforceability of the decision" gives it a case to either modify the decision or even strike it out altogether."
That's quite different than saying "I don't believe the trigger was pulled."
Thanks, Loop.
It appears the panel took a little license by not declaring Nokia in default.
Seems like everyone knew the trigger was pulled but the Viper Pit in Espoo.
And I'll say it again. They wasted another two years of IDCC's 2G patent life, not to mention knocking-off another two years of their license agreement, and all it cost was what they owed.
Nice thought.
As long as we don't have to arbitrate the arbitration.
Why would the ICC leave such a large loose end, after all this time?
Why didn't they request Nokia's sales figures before making their decision?
If there was some reason not to, would they not have advised Nokia to provide them by a certain date, so that IDCC knows what it has won?
L2V. LOL.
As Malko would say, "Tight lines!"
Dan.
That "few months" gets us even closer to the end of 2006, when Nokia's license expires.
Most of us gave little thought to 2006 when IDCC settled with Ericy. After all, that was WAY BACK IN 2003.
It's clear to me that The Viper Pit in Espoo is totally dedicated: Not to a scorched-earth policy, but to a delaying action designed to box-in IDCC on all fronts.
Each "slithering" move, whether it discourages customers from signing-up on 3G, or delays confirmation of 2G, gets them closer to their objective.
Gab.
Nokia is about to make a decision which could save it $42 million or more, or cost it up to $100/$125 million.
$42 million is the prepayment discount, if 2G/3G royalties are paid timely.
Interest on the award is still uncertain. But it could be $25 to $50 million, depending on the rate and principal amount owed. Part or all of this could be forgiven by IDCC if a 3G rate was agreed to.
If they fight the ICC decision, punitive damages could be assessed. And for the lack of a better number, I'll take a guess at 10%, or another $25 million.
I hope you're right about the Nokia BOD. The total of all of the above could be half of the ICC award, so we're not talkin' peanuts.
I object, yer honer!
"the guilty all too frequently excape due justice by using
LOOPHOLES and shady, legal tactics available to them."
Whizzer.
Nokia is apparently trying to discourage anyone from signing a 3G license, so why would Samsung seem to be demanding one?
Ghors.
Never let it be said that Nokia's strategists are not pretty smart cookies. . . . . . . . . . to a point.
They're currently attacking on several fronts, but it all started with the first agreements, more than five years ago, IMO:
1. Let's sign an agreement with this pesky little twerp that provides for "starter" payments, followed by nothing for two years.
2. If we get caught by the agreement, we'll play the "out-wait 'em" card.
Keep eating-up huge chunks of time by demanding arbitration for 2G (2 years), followed by a lawsuit to invalidate 3G, which should be worth another couple of years. By then, most of their 2G patents will have expired, and the Delaware action should prevent them from signing 3G licenses.
3. If the ICC rules against us, take advantage of the law: Wait for 90 days and file an action to vacate, which will delay payment for several more months.
4. While all this is going on, throw a number of "press release turds" in Wall Street's punch bowl, designed to keep the price down, confuse, discourage, and mislead, until we come up with our next delaying tactic.
But, they underestimated Merritt and our legal guyz. They cut Nokia off at the pass by forcing an answer in the enforcement action in 10 days, versus taking possibly 6 months or more in a separate vacating action.
A small victory where time is concerned. But it's a start.
One of those tribes is a little known offshoot of the Fugwa Nation, who were trying to avoid capture by George Washington.
This prompted General Washington to ask, when he crossed the Delaware River, "Where the Fugawee?"
Intel v. Broadcom (D. Del.)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Broadcom, a major semiconductor manufacturer, in a multi-patent infringement action against Intel. The five patents at issue involved video compression, networking technology and semiconductor packaging. Intel sought monetary damages and an injunction sufficient to put Broadcom out of business. Opposing counsel was Fish & Richardson PC. After a two and a half week jury trial on two of the patents in November-December 2001, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Broadcom obtained a complete defense verdict. The jury entered more than one hundred factual findings in our client's favor. The National Law Journal featured the verdict as one of the "Top 10" defense victories in the nation for 2001.
http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=Our_Clients/winscases.htm
Mschere.
WOW.
Nokia is a client, and Alston still chose to represent IDCC!
WOW.
Mts.
I'd love to see a profit and loss statement on NOK's U.S. operations.
Last I heard, their market share was hovering around 17%. (Don't jump me, O'Dog).
With 6,600 employees, The Snake has got to be pulling his hair every month.
O'Dog.
Thanks. My statement stands!
I said, "I'd be surprised if they had more than 1,000 employees."
Now I'm really surprised. LOL.
Miller.
I also doubt it.
I only brought it up because some are suggesting writing to local or federal officials, and might want to use it.
As I said, it might be worth remembering. . . . . . . . . .
Malko.
When you move the next time, make sure it's to the U.S.
We need you. LOL.
Spencer.
Did you really mean that?
If NOK has more than 1,000 employees in the U.S., I'd be surprised.
If NOK is throwing stones at our new military communications system, the army would be surprised.
If NOK actions are responsible for holding down employment at KOP, the Pennsylvania governator should be surprised.
Are you suggesting that a handful of employees entitles NOK to leverage in Congress, along with tacit approval of non-payment to a U.S. company of almost a quarter of a billion dollars?
Malko.
I recently received a call from someone who suggested that Nokia had better tread lightly, where IDCC is concerned.
Although I have no clue how IDCC patents connect to Nokia and the military contract with General Dynamics, this caller believed that "stepping over the line" could meet with some unexpected action from some of the boyz in Washington.
This will not shake Jim's board to the rafters, but it might be worth remembering.
Harball.
If Nokia doesn't sell 'em, someone else will. And that includes manufacturers like Sharp, NEC, Panasonic, etc.
Mschere.
Under the heading, "We don't know what the hell to do", comes the standard response from the loser:
"Nokia said it is currently evaluating its options in light of the dissent."
Hardball.
I guess we see the Best Buy thing differently.
As we know, the U.S. market is second only to China, and is one of Nokia's worst, from a share standpoint, and one of Samsung's best.
I would much rather see Samsung sales than Nokia. Hopefully, this will put more pressure on Jorma to recognize IDCC's patents in 3G or, at least, help to get Delaware behind us.