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.
Cruising the NOK board today, a poster said Best Buy is no longer handling Nokia phones, because they're a pain in the a$$ to deal with.
He added that he verified this on Best Buy's website.
Just for kicks, I checked the Michigan websites, and found the same thing.
Lotsa phones from Samsung, LG, SNE and others. But nary a Nokia phone.
Whizzer.
Can NOK intercede in the enforcement action, before the judge makes a decision?
From Marstein on Yahoo:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
by: marsteinf
Long-Term Sentiment: Buy 07/05/05 01:28 pm
Msg: 231356 of 231356
To all. This was my neighbor's take on the cc.
He first wants to say he thinks he might have been wrong earlier stating idcc and nokia were in talks before the arb decesion, based on nokia's current comments.
He thought Nokia response to possibly try to find a loophole based on the disenting arb opinion was funny at best. Every arb he has had with the icc there has never been a majority ruling, thats why they pick 3 people for arb. He is sure the arb who disagreed with the ruling was picked by nokia, but it seems like the arb that was not picked by either party sided with idc and allowed the nokia arb to respect his opinions, and ultimately this is why it went back to the tribunal for further clarification and a reduce award for IDC.
For nokia to ask for arb, then given a fair amount to pay and then to insult the icc in stating that because of one arb's disenting opinion they have grounds to appeal the award, is showing a sign of desperation on there part. If everyone did this why bother having the icc at all. They are just wasting the icc's time and the courts time if they continue to fight.
Nokia is showing its true business ethics to all companies that deal with them and the filing by idcc to enforce the award should send a strong message to them, that there b/s will not be tolorated any longer...he bought shares this morning...
Sorry.
My bad.
That's a month old.
Zip.
Is Harry overseeing the timing of everything?
It was obviously no coincidence that we were halted just before the market opened on July lst.
It was also no coincidence that the decision was announced at 10 minutes to 4:00.
It is no coincidence that the CC is two hours earlier than normal, and will surely be over by 9:30.
IMO, two can play the "finger" game.
Loop.
Man-oh-man. Will I ever learn to pay attention?
I kept wondering why IDCC's amounts were "net" of discounts, and you have now answered the question.
"NOK is not in default at this time."
So, if they fail to prepay the $112 million by a certain date, it rises to about $134 million. And failure to pay the second round of $120 million, gooses that figure to about $140 million.
Failure to pay both results in a loss of about $42 million in discount, and a liability of nearly $275 million.
Any idea when that date might be?
Loop.
I tend to agree with DD. But would like to elaborate a bit.
It's much tougher selling than buying, especially when it comes to peddling patents. And I wouldn't have Merritt's job for the world, as long as Nokia plays the "finger" game.
But it seems to me that public perception of Nokia, whether it's Wall Street, individual investors, or suppliers, will not be the same.
Surely, it will take more than this loss to strip Ollila of his clothes. But the wind is now blowing in a slightly different direction.
IMO, the big boyz will no longer see Nokia's actions as "slam dunkers", as most did with the arbitration.
On the flip side, public perception of IDCC's chances were all too apparent. The MM's, Shorts and Hedge Funds delighted in slapping us around, right up to the last minute. But, at 10 minutes to 4:00, lightning struck as they were jetting to Cape Cod, and could hear Harry saying, "Yeah. We know. Payback is hell, guys!"
They may not admit it. But if they pull on the Nokia string carefully, they'll find this is not the first unraveling.
Texas is "out", as is North Carolina; the UK has been delayed from July to October, as has the NOK-related arbitration with Samsung. And, while most analysts trumpet Nokia's
second-coming to North America, the jury is still saying, "Show me the market share!"
Those who say, "Is that little company still in business?"
must now question not only the outcome of Nokia's actions in Delaware and the UK, but whether Nokia deserves to be called a Wall Street Darling.
Loop.
Thanks for clearing up some of the remaining fog that still drifts in from Espoo.
I was not aware that Nokia did not have to report sales until after the trigger was pulled.
Nor did I understand why the ICC failed to lay-out specific numbers. Looks like a Paris "tweak", to block Nokia's attempts to upset the applecart.
(Heartburn-time for Nokia's lawyers).
Although Mr. Bill may put injunction on the back burner for the time being, Nokia must be painfully aware that it's still an option, which I hope he addresses at the CC.
The U.S. is the second largest market in the world, but one where Nokia's share is the smallest.
Nazd rule:
NASDAQ Stock Market rules 4310(c)(16), 4320(e)(14) and IM-4120-1 require that, except in unusual circumstances, NASDAQ-listed companies disclose promptly to the public through any Regulation FD complaint method (or combination of methods), material information that would reasonably be expected to affect the value of their securities or influence investors’ decisions.
These rules also require issuers to provide NASDAQ StockWatch advance notice of certain news events to permit StockWatch to assess the news announcement for materiality and, in certain circumstances, implement temporary trading halts to allow for even dissemination of the material news.
All I'm saying is, once the PR is ready, IDCC must give it to the NAZ for a trading halt.
I don't know who decides when the proper amount of time has elapsed, before trading is resumed. But I suspect it's the NAZ.
IDCC gets the decision.
It prepares a press release.
Gives it to the NAZ boyz, requesting a halt.
The NAZ says, "OK, you are halted."
There can be no imbalance, because the NAZ hasn't released the news.
Anyone know the next step?
Doesn't IDCC give the news to a "halting" agent, and ask that trading be stopped?
L2V.
At 76 years old, I never like to take myself too seriously, which is why I joke around alot. With that exception, go back over my previous posts to you, and you will see we disagree on nothing.
The post was directed to Miller, and not to you, nor any other loyal long on IHUB or Yahoo, or I would not be posting here.
Many on Yahoo would like to see IDCC disappoint again. They are the "horse's a$$es" I was talking about.
Peace.
You are one sad dude, Miller.
"You build others expectations and when it doesn't come to fruition, they get discouraged and sell."
As usual, you're the only smart cookie on the message boards.
L2V.
If you told me, "I will transmit a decision to you by June 30."
even an Alabama jury could understand that.
And if you followed-up with, "or August 31", I'd advise you to see your protologist, pronto!
Ghors.
Any comments on the latest Tantivy filings?
Amr.
Correct.
But if you and I were negotiating over the price of anything, we'd have to have a starting price.
Spencer.
The Court Committee, which has three members, meets once a week, and reports their decisions to the ICC court, which has 6 members, and sits once a month.
The inference is, they handle smaller cases. And they are not allowed to decide on cases of major interest, or those involving complex legal issues.
I do not believe the big boyz would leave this decision to a three member committee.
Bob.
Howard and Rip are gone, but their separation pay is still with us.
About $1.3 million, as I recall.
Zip.
In Michigan, we have an appliance retailer, who has survived the onslaught from Best Buy, Walmart, and the rest.
Their ads read, "X Price, OR LESS. And we have it in inventory NOW."
Let's hope the ICC reads the Detroit News. LOL.
BTW, Sale.
Each day on Yahoo, we count down the days till June 30, or D. Day #2, which shows our positive attitude.
We do not like multiple-choice answers, and still hope that Marstein's neighbor, the retired attorney, circuit court judge, and one who has been involved in about a dozen ICC cases, is right.
To repeat (paraphrase) his answers to Marstein:
Delays are very rare with the ICC. Although some cases have been delayed, none of my mine have.
IMO. this is a sign that something big is going on. Although the companies have denied that negotiations are underway, I believe they started just recently, and the parties will settle.
So, why do we have faith in this "horses mouth"?
Because he's our only source with ICC experience, and we've heard enough from the other end of the horse.
Sale.
I am programmed, like Pavlov's dog. Why get news sooner, when you can always get it later. LOL.
BTW, Mrs. Sale is the one who said the ICC gave us two dates instead of one, "because".
I interpret that to mean, "Why waste a perfectly good date?"
Yeah. I know what you mean. I was once surrounded by GM engineers from the Proving Grounds.
But it apparently didn't hurt Burnstein on his move up the ladder.
As top dog in the patent department at a telecom related company, I guess I'd rather see an EE degree, than not, so he wouldn't get hoodwinked by the opposition.
Merritt also said he needed help in that area, which may be an admission that it can be critical in tough negotiations.
What would be your preference?
Clear the decks, boyz, and prepare for battle. The days of yore are gone:
1. Shove the UK to October.
2. Move Sammy to the same.
3. Say goodbye to Howard and Rip.
4. Appoint a new, and highly qualified president.
5. Back him up with bull dog, with like experience, and an electrical engineering degree.
6. Keep your eye on June 30, but don't fret too much (crying is OK), if the decision doesn't come till August 31.
Who among us would return to the "old" days?
Mschere.
BTG, "The litigation company". "You Invent, We Collect".
"Kneecapping at discount prices!"
Bernstein's appointment probably landed like a very large turd in Lucent's punchbowl since, as you point out, Lucent became a BTG client in February 1999.
Bernstein's tenure at BTG preceded this relationship by about two years.
"Mr. Bernstein joined BTG in 1997 as Vice President, Legal and Patents, and recently served as Vice President and Head of Patents, a position he has held since 2002."
As I recall, IDCC patent expert in the LU case also worked at Lucent, which was rather violently opposed by the boyz at Bell Labs.
Thanks for digging out those new bones, in what would otherwise appear to be just employment history.
Was IDCC's stock involved in the rebalancing?
If not, why would there be a connection with the block?
ICC Rule 27.
"The Court may lay down modifications as to the form of the Award and, WITHOUT AFFECTING THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL'S LIBERTY OF DECISION, may also draw its attention to points of substance."
Where are you getting this
"It's about formulating an essentially new report", and
"groups of consultants have been called in, and the ICC will probably report out something significantly different from the original panel report."
Mschere.
I love this part:
"QUALCOMM believes that the terms and conditions of the licenses with these Chinese manufacturers are, when considered as a whole, fair to all QUALCOMM licensees."
I wonder how QCOM licensees would vote.
It would take an army of accountants to determine, company by company, whether higher royalties for sales OUTSIDE of China, compensate for lower royalties INSIDE China.
Indeed, some may not even sell outside of China.
L2V.
Interesting take on Tantivy/LU.
Could IDCC have purchased Tantivy partly because they thought they'd have a a ready-made licensee in LU, but got thumbs down from the not-invented-here boyz?
If I recall correctly, some guessed that Merritt's failure to produce a licensee, as promised by Howard, was caused by LU.
Keeps those informative posts coming.
Mschere.
Good point.
There are probably 10 more that we'll never know about.
L2V.
Scuse me for butting in, but part of the rollover could be the following:
1. IDCC was getting nowhere in court. And its reputation as "the litigation company" was irritating the crap out of everyone.
2. Ericy's former handset division was continuing to slide after the merger, and there was talk of Sony exercising its rights, and leaving Ericy in the lurch.
3. Ericy itself, looked like a candidate for bankruptcy, and sank to the lowest levels in modern history.
4. After replacing Ericy as the big dog, and mindful that it saved IDCC from disaster in 1999, Nokia increasingly looked like the only port in the storm. If nothing else, it could refresh IDCC's bank account, and put it in a position to move forward with its huge bet on WCDMA.
Although disappointing, I begrudgingly agreed with IDCC's settlement, because it looked like they were finally moving in the right direction.
Then, up jumped The Snake, and we're starting the process all over again. Albeit with different players.
Just MO.
Loop.
Every time I hear that Sammy is INSISTING it has 3G licensing rights with IDCC, I have to chuckle.
On the one hand, Nokia is throwing stink bombs in all the courtrooms in the land, trying to scare everyone off.
On the other, our little friend in Korea is pounding on Merritt's door, demanding its licensing rights.
I realize Sam is angling for an advantage. But it's nice to see someone thinks we have the right stuff in 3G.
Note to Nokia's message board monitor: Please feel free to use this post in the Delaware case.
Two patent sharpies!
Good news.
If you're driving, will you be carrying a driving stick?
L2V.
Today, I like to think of us as Jason Gore.
Rated 8l8th in the world, and now on the leader board at the Open, when it really counts.
Man. This is some tournament. With the Pistons yet to go tonight.
BTW, thanks Mschere.
Nic.
Even a blind mouse can find a piece of cheeze, if he noses around enough. LOL.
Have you checked Lucent's?
Sale.
As as esteemed educator, would you kindly 'splain why the ICC
1. Gave one date (May 31) for their first decision, and
2. Then gave two dates in their encore announcement?
And how would you grade them for clarity?
Loop.
Your comment concerning Ericy's lack of provision for patent liability gave me a hiccup, and prompted me to check their 2004 balance sheet.
Their consolidated statement shows "Other Provisions" totalling 24.7 billion SEK.
In defining "Other Provisions", Ericy says, in the first sentence, 14.5 billion SEK of the 24.7 billion includes "estimated obligations related to patents and other litigation, contractual discounts", etc., etc.
This 14.5 billion does not include such large items as warranty, restructuring, and customer financing.
Their 1Q 2005 numbers are not presented in a comparable manner, but appear to be little changed from December.