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.
Loop.
I think L2V and I were assuming that the third trigger would be pulled with a 3G agreement with Nokia.
Few believe that Ericy would sign for 3G, unless that happens.
And who would blame them?
L2V.
You get no argument here.
I wholeheartedly agree that, when drafting the agreements, the parties fully intended to establish three triggers.
To do otherwise would be totally inconsistent, and an illogical sequence of events.
Nokia's problem is, each time a trigger is pulled, they're on the receiving end of the bullet.
Excellent post.
IDCC seems ready to accept the ICC's decision, come hell or high water. But can Nokia take the same approach?
If IDCC doesn't prevail, it will be nothing new to Wall Street. But many eyebrows will be raised if Nokia loses.
In fact, even a settlement would shake the rafters because, no matter how you spin it, a "win-win" outcome is a merely a fiction in the eyes of the loser.
There will only be one winner and, regardles of who wins, this shot will be heard 'round the world.
Cute.
Are you from Finland?
Quartzman.
I liked your post. LOL.
Oso.
Yeah. I was going to say that too, but held my tongue.
The eagles are ganging up on me, giving the legal party line.
Sale.
I don't want to beat this to death but, since an appeal or challenge is remote, and since inability to satisfy a judgment or the potential for bankruptcy are even more remote, it would seem to boil down to 3G.
My point is, this is a rather unique situation.
In my experience, parties do not leave themselves open to criticism, by revealing what they "paid" to get 3G, as an example.
Loop.
We've all heard about the "coffee" case, and other ridiculous punitive damage awards.
However, I was thinking more along corporate lines.
Would you not think it would strange for IDCC to announce a 2G award of say, $300 million, and later announce a settlement of $200 million including 3G?
Can you site one of those "common" ocurrences?
Does anyone recall a case where the winner announced a judgment, and the parties later settled for something more, or less?
Marion.
The panel members are American.
I guess we have to trust that the ICC will follow its own rules:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Article 27
Scrutiny of the Award by the Court
Before signing any Award, the Arbitral Tribunal shall submit it in draft form to the Court. 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. No Award shall be rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal until it has been approved by the Court as to its form.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tonbar.
Damn!
Is it too late?
Can I sue and use my post as evidence that my snake preceded his snake? LOL.
MTS.
Mine have already been slit several times.
The word is, you are a virgin.
MTS.
Obviously a mass conspiracy.
Tantivy-October.
UK-October.
Sammy-October.
If the arb. is moved to October, I think I'll slit your wrists.
Good afternoon, Loop.
12B's.
Yeah. And the smaller the inventor, the better The Snake likes it.
Maybe our boyz in NY can use the ammunition.
L2V.
Given Nokia's admitted fear of lawsuits from patent holders, maybe Nokia's lawyers can explain why they didn't sue Jari Lahtinen, before he sued them for infringement on June 8.
As you may recall, Lahtinen, is a FINNISH INVENTOR of a remote control function for mobile phones, and is being assisted in his efforts by a company called Anadeus.
It looks like Lahtinen had no success playing "Mr. Nice Guy" since receiving his patent in late 2003, and had no other choice but to go to court.
http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/050608/79611.html.
"This invention received a patent in late 2003 from the National Board of Patents and Registrations of Finland.
According to Antti Kosunen, CEO of Anadeus, the exact amount of compensation demand could rise to millions of euros or even considerably higher, depending of Nokia's sales volumes related to the patent.
This is one of the first cases in which Nokia has been sued in court in its home country for patent infringement.
Inventors are often private citizens with limited resources to fight an infringement battle against a giant company like Nokia. Anadeus has been established to help such inventors by, among other things, financing the processes and providing expert advice."
IQ.
That was a mouthful!
By the time Nokia's boyz finish reading your posts, their heads should be swimming, and the phones in FinnishLand should be ringing off the hook.
Thanks so much.
Ghors.
F&J has made a bigger fuss about other "evidence" submitted by Nokia, than they did the "post".
Some of their prior comments were downright scornful, and I expected a far stronger retort.
Maybe they're waiting for the judge and his clerks to fire the real shot.
Dave.
Excellent retort by F&J.
Although they spent little time poo-pooing the message board post, they pointed out that Nokia had to have evidence that a lawsuit was threatened, long before that message was ever posted.
Corp.
After the flurry of lawsuits by Nokia, it's hard to believe they would agree to extend the trial date, unless it benefited them.
Is The Snake coming to his senses, or just playing more games?
Dave.
It was Marstein, on Yahoo.
But he also said extensions are very rare.
The ICC rules seem to indicate that the ICC can pretty much do anything they want, when it comes to extensions.
Come on, Loop.
You don't want to become a permanent Boob.
Is Nurse Cratchet giving you a hard time today?
With two actions moved, why not three?
However, based on what Merritt said about not being contacted by the ICC, it would be misleading on his part if the parties contacted the ICC, and requested a delay in the arb.
Nonetheless, I think they're talking.
Mschere.
One party had to start the ball rolling to move the UK trial from July to October.
Too bad we don't know which one.
Loop.
FWIW, I emailed Sam Stevens at UK Court Services, asking if he knew why the UK trial was moved to October.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: [mailto:laranger@comcast.net]
Sent: 11 June 2005 16:19
To: Stevens, Sam
Subject: Re: Mr. Stevens.
Sorry to bother you again, but do you know why the trial was moved from July to October?
Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Response:
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although this may not surprise you, we all know it coicides with the movement of SAM to October, and I'd much rather see that "the parties" requested the change, than the court.
Dodd.
IMO, Nokia played the "we doeth protest too much" card, without even knowing it was in the deck. And they might like to take that "ooops" card back.
However, the threat of legal action is at the heart of the Delaware action.
1. One of their baddest patent dawgs swears, UNDER OATH, that IDCC has threatened legal action for more than 10 years.
2. But IDCC has a 10-year patent dawg of its own, and he follows-up with a complete denial.
Apparently, Nokia is worried that their affidavit isn't strong enough to cinch the case, so they're taking the "fling the dung" approach.
Stay tuned, to see if it sticks.
Waz.
Interesting figures.
Out of 561 cases in 2004, 345 awards were made, or 62%.
Doesn't say what happened to the remainder.
One third of all cases were for less than $1 million.
Anyone read the NY Times today?
I got a call that there are several pages about a new low tar filter being introduced by a company in Timberlake, NC>
Wellstone was not mentioned by name. But they are in Timberlake.
There was a reference to a New Century Company, and others.
L2V. You are too funny. LOL.
SHAZAM, indeed.
Let's hope Maria goes out with a BIG BANK for IDCC in Mid-2205.
Although receiving a meritorious award is significant, it wouldn't compare to an IHUB/YAHOO award.
Jorma wasn't mentioned as one of the attending "business leaders", but "Ole' beady-eyes" had to be there, if only to confirm his allegiance to IPR, and the fact that it "stifles competition".
Thanks, Loop.
Now I'm clear, and can go cut the grass.
And, FWIW, your assessment is the same as Marstein's neighbor.
As you may recall, he stated that delays are very rare, and normally done at the request of the parties (specifically, settlement), or to make sure everything is in ship-shape in large cases.
He also believes the decision will be transmitted by June 30. But reserves the possibility of a slight delay.
You may not have seen Marstein's latest post about his neighbor's credentials: He has reportedly handled "several" ICC cases, is a former California attorney, a retired circuit court judge, and is still involved in arbitration.
For those who may be skeptical, FWIW, Marstein has been a Yahoo board member since 1998, and says he has known his neighbor for two years.
More important, Marstein is taking care of this fella's cat for three weeks, while he's on vacation! WOW!
What do you think about that, bucko? ! ! ! ! ! ! !
What surprises me is the seeming lack of interest in the trip.
Lotsa talk about keeping everything above board with panel members and the ICC, so NOK has nothing to gripe about.
The trip could obviously be totally innocent, but I'd sure like to know more about it.
Loop.
You went clear over my head with your post concerning the delay in the arb decision. Others on Yahoo are also asking for clarification.
Here's what you said: (I removed some extraneous words).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
. . . the . .date for issuing the "final award" (is) 8/31/2005.
. . . the Tribunal (believes) the "final award" will be transmitted to the parties by June 30, 2005.
The "final award" cannot be transmitted unless it issued.
The. . . .ICC said they are extending the date to August 31, but the final award would probably be issued by June 30, 2005.
MO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Question: We're obviously missing something.
But, if the final award is not being issued until 8/31,
and it cannot be transmitted unless it is issued,
how can the award (probably) be issued by June 30?
I think I just gave myself a headache.
I missed the news that the head of ICC made a visit to Finland "a while back".
Please elaborate for me, as well as others who may not have seen this information?
Also, do you know whether the folks at KOP are aware of this?
TIA.
Amr.
Not without going back and reading his posts.
Like the rest of us, he's probably just riding the waves, hoping that the delay eventually brings good news.
I'm sure you've read his posts. So why would you ask?
And can you swear on the Bible that you're not working for The Snake? And if not, why not? LOL.
Connie.
Tell the Olde Pharte that it will be a sad day in this country when attorneys cannot post on message boards, solely because of their professions.
Nokia did not hook an attorney when they threw that "fish" on the Delaware Court's doorstep. They were desperately trolling the waters for anything they could catch, and it looks like they scraped bottom. In the end, they may have left a terrible smell in the judge's courtroom.
Loop is always careful to state that his posts are opinions, after each rendition. But even if he didn't, he and others normally say "I believe", or "It's my opinion", in the body of each post. Would any court have us do otherwise?
We are now fully aware that "the enemy" is monitoring this, and other message boards. But that should not stop us from saying what we believe.
And unless I miss my guess, it will not stop Loop.
Thanks for taking care of your dad. I know he appreciates it.
Sale.
Actually, I think it's a great experience!
How 'bout giving them a little shot of Clarence, to end up the evening:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Judge Rader - Your contract with IDCC just substitutes NOK for ERICY.
NOK - No it doesn’t.
Judge Rader - Yes it does.
NOK - No it doesn’t.
Judge Rader - Yes it does.
NOK - OK, it does.
(Poetic license obviously taken here).
Mts.
"They" are watching.
Beware of "They".
Gamco.
You gotta admit, they haven't done too badly.
Howard's gone, The Cord is gone, lotsa people are unhappy with Harry, others don't like board members they've never meat, and the back-biting continues with members of this board.
Thanks to Bulldog for letting us know they're watching.
IMO, that's what Nokia's lawyers want you to think.
Aside from monitoring, for monitoring's sake, I believe they're trying to drive a wedge between IDCC management and its shareholders.
If they can persuade you to dump your shares in disgust, or pressure management to make concessions to avoid protracted litigation, they stand to gain.
IDCC has relatively few shares outstanding. And since there is no discussion-website for institutional holders, where else can they find a concentration of shareholders, than on IDCC message boards?