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.
Didn't NOK complain in Delaware that IDCC's actions were hurting it current sales?
Chartex. You opened Pandor's box. Just a few more.
After 50 years, I've learned the following:
1. Wives were put on this earth mainly to turn the lights on. Especially those 5 lights near the washer/dryer in the basement, which makes them more comfortable, even after they leave for the day. "I leave them on, so I won't have to pull the string when I go back." If you want to start an argument, tell her that's why the electric is $150 a month for two people, and she'll tell you Edison said they cost little or nothing. "They should know. After all, they provide the electricity".
2. Wives are very mechanical. When it's too hot in the car, they turn the heater completely off. Moving the higher/lower controls is far too complex. And if one button doesn't work immediately, they push every one of them until something happens that sounds right.
3. Wives are also very light eaters. When you take them to dinner, they order a $5.00 salad, while you order an $18 steak. The rest of the $70 bill is for wine, and a generous tip for that "nice waiter".
4. Wives loves to run the legs off the wait staff. After bringing olive oil and parmesan cheese for dipping, "I'd like a glass of water, lemon, no ice, please". After the water, "our bread is running low". After the bread, "Could we have another plate. We'd like to split the salad."
5. When dining on Mexican, "I'd like a frozen margarita, not too sour, not too sweet, not out of the machine, lots of limes, salt, triple sek, top-of-the-line Cuervo, mixed by hand please. . . I think it's called a Cadillac." And when the margarita is served, "This is just not right!". Four "trial" drinks later, "Thanks. I guess this will just have to do. My husband has already finished his dinner".
That was very hurtful, Cliff.
Not to mention oil, up $1.78.
"...We spoke with a NOK reresentitive yesterday who confirmed that NOK has a 2g/GSM/TDMA licesnsing obligation with interdigital for 2002 through 2006..."
I forgot that one. Thanks for the reminder.
BTW, highly unusal comment for an executive, given NOK's legal actions around the planet.
Ronnie.
I wonder who called who first? Bill or Sam?
"Hello, Sammy? Bill here.
Wanna change the arbitration to October, so we can have a little time to talk about the results of the aribtration with our Finnished friends?"
"OK with us, Bill. What about the panel? After all, they already know the outcome of the Nokia decision, and might not agree to an extension. And, by the way, four months is more than a little time."
"I've already talked to them, Sam. They say it's OK. All they have to do is notify Paris. And, for what it's worth, we've already agreed with Nokia to extend the UK trial to October."
"Fine, Bill. Hope to see you next week, after your ASM. Be sure to say hello to Howard. Scuse me. Make that Harry."
"InterDigital, Samsung AND THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL. . . .
have MUTUALLY AGREED to postpone the evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 2005."
If the Tribunal agreed to postpone, one wouldn't think they'd need four months to talk about a "no trigger" decision.
Maybe two minutes, or less.
Dan.
Wassup?
UK was also moved to October.
Mschere.
Merritt was appointed because Howard was gone, and couldn't report his own departure.
Do I have to 'splain everything? LOL.
Malko.
Excellent news!
Come and see us on Yahoo, too!
BTW, any late news from the boyz in Paris?
Some time ago, Loop mentioned Hi/Lo agreements.
If I recall correctly, he said they're quite common in legal disputes.
I have to chuckle when the ICC says the Committee can't approve an award of "particular interest".
Particular interest to whom?
Nokia.
Samsung.
LG Electonics.
Forbes Magazine.
The rest of the wireless world, but especially those who have refused to license because of the arbitration.
A few thousand boyz and girls on Wall Street, including MM's, Shorts, Hedge Funds, Naked Shorts, River Boat Gamblers, option holders, etc.
And finally. . . . . . . . . . A few hundred nervous wives, who wonder whether their husbands know what they're doing, and ask daily, "Anything new with IDCC?".
Sure, Sale.
Courthouse steps #1 starts on May 28th, and ends on May 30th.
If Jorma doesn't cave by then, and IDCC wins, courthouse steps #2 starts on May 31, and ends shortly thereafter.
The Court Committee meets every Friday.
The Court itself, meets once a month, probably on a Friday, according to the NY office.
The Committee can approve awards, but not those involving "particular interest", or those that are "legally complex".
If NOK fails to settle over the long Memorial Day weekend, they may be waiting to see whether IDCC gets the nod.
If they do, Jorma still has 3G in his pocket for settlement talks. But this would probably require some fast attorneys, if they want to have an agreement by June 2nd.
No matter how you cut it, it could be a momentous ASM.
I gather you don't believe that a BRCM win will have any effect on Irwin's splendid everything/anytime patent portfolio.
I would much rather hear DR's comments about the BRCM suit against QCOM.
A slug of patents and patents-pending, that could affect lots of folks in the wireless world.
From another board:
In two complaints filed yesterday in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Broadcom (BRCM) is seeking unspecified monetary damages from Qualcomm as well as a permanent injunction barring the manufacture and sale of Qualcomm's core suite of baseband and RF integrated circuits, including its multimedia, enhanced and convergence platform chips and its QChat(R) VoIP technology for cellular phones, which Broadcom alleges infringe its patents. BRCM states: "We believe that Qualcomm's current and next generation cellular baseband and radio frequency (RF) product lines infringe a number of our patents."
SEOUL, May 19 (Reuters) -
U.S.-based wireless technology firm Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) expects slower global growth in demand for mobile phones this year due to a slow transition to next generation mobile services, its chief executive said on Thursday.
"Last year we saw very strong growth... and this year it will be little slower than that," Irwin Mark Jacobs, the chief executive officer of Qualcomm, told reporters on the sidelines of a telecoms forum in Seoul.
The lower forecast echoed earlier projections by market research group Gartner, which said in March that mobile phone sales would grow only 7 percent this year, after a 30 percent jump a year ago, as consumers will likely not upgrade to new models as often as last year.
Qualcomm cut its 2005 revenue target to a range of $5.5 billion to $5.7 billion in late April, citing global product inventory gluts and weak demand in Western Europe for advanced cell-phone services such as mobile video and Web surfing.
Qualcomm dominates the market for chips based on CDMA, a mobile phone standard popular in the United States and Asia, and sells technology licences and some chips for W-CDMA, a technology emerging in Europe.
Jacobs reiterated that Qualcomm, which sells technology licences for every W-CDMA phone sold and chips in some W-CDMA phones, expected 50 million worldwide shipments of such phones this calendar year, down from its earlier estimate for 55 million.
He also said Qualcomm was planning to offer trial services of television broadcasts via mobile phone in South Korea.
"We are discussing with a number of Korean broadcasters, content providers and operators," Jacobs said.
Qualcomm, which plans to spend about $800 million to build a network to broadcast TV to phones next year, expects video on phones to be the most popular advanced service.
It is now conducting trials with U.S. broadcasters for its mobile TV services.
The service, if it becomes commercially available in South Korea, will compete with satellite-based digital multimedia broadcasting services which had its commercial launch this month.
"MediaFlo (Qualcomm's TV network subsidiary) has sufficient capability..It will indeed win out over other technologies," Jacobs said.
DR.
Thanks.
Question still lingers.
Why would IDCC say (in a court document) that it had more than 1600 approved, and over 5,000 pending.
Surely, they wouldn't count the same patent or patent application more than once, regardless of the number of countries involved.
I think I'll give this a rest.
Mschere/DR.
I thought we had over 4,000 approved patents, and 500 pending.
Now, court documents say 1,600 approved, and over 5,000 pending.
So, how come DR's numbers say substantially less?
Reminds me of a CC question long ago, when Howard said he would try to get a more accurate count of patents, in answer to one analyst's question.
Mschere.
Welcome back.
Whatever happened to "500" unapproved patents?
4,000 sounds like a bunch.
L2V.
Every once in a while, I just can't help posting that one.
LOL.
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).
Judge Rader - Then why didn’t you intervene earlier?
NOK - NOK did not have the same interest in 1999. When IDCC got the Orders vacated, that had an effect upon the contract (IDCC/NOK license).
Judge - Why should we help you when you could have intervened earlier?
NOK - We trusted IDCC.
Judge Rader - OK, they didn’t protect you; but they had no obligation to protect you.
I just received the following email from Sam Stevens, of HM Court-service in the UK.
"The trial date was never May, it was a mistake on the website. It was originally July and then moved to October. Sorry if the website has caused you confusion."
JK.
Thanks.
That answers my question.
Amr.
Read my post.
I already showed the trial set for October some time ago.
In fact, I posted the October date, along with several other dates a couple of weeks ago, when Jim asked for the list. But no one corrected me at the time.
I agree. If they moved it, this could be significant.
My question still is, was the May date published by the court, and did I just miss it?
JK.
I was keeping "upcoming dates" in a file, so I could keep track of what was going on.
I show the UK trial set for sometime in October.
Now, you're saying it was set for anytime after May 11.
Did I miss an announcement by the court?
From Yahoo.
by: greedaintbad (M/NorthernNJ) 05/16/05 09:58 am
Msg: 224542 of 224542
Looks like whatever was supposed to happen on 7/4/05 was pushed back to 11/15/05. Go to main link and do a search on Nokia.
Wasn't JK going back?
O'Dog.
Another bone unearthed in cyberspace. LOL.
After talking to NY, I was convinced that Jorma was waiting for Memorial Day weekend to sign a letter of intent to settle, because he knew the ICC would not publish a decision before the last Friday in May. (In fact, that might still be the case).
Frankly, monthly approval made sense, because we were all surprised with the 60 day approval timeframe. But with monthly meetings, the ICC could easily slide past the first 30 days, if they had to return the draft for correction, etc.
I must admit, however, when NY said some (small) cases are decided in one day, it made no sense to wait for the next plenary session to confirm the award. Ergo, the changes in 1997, which NY was unfamiliar with.
But, I will still retain this not-so-little tidbit of hope:
1. We haven't seen the the new Appendix II, which lays out the details for Committee approval. Surely, they contain more than what was revealed by the Court.
2. The court said, in condensed form:
"the Court issued GUIDELINES whereby Committee sessions MAY decide on approval of awards, in MOST CASES,
EXCEPT FOR (those) involving matters of PARTICULAR legal complexity or INTEREST."
The ICC was evidently hidebound, and clearly needed to speed up the process. But, kindly give the following your close attention:
a. A sizeable award may be in the works. (Maybe as much as $400 million, versus an average of maybe less than $25-$50 million).
b. The Court forbid Committee approval in "matters of particular interest". Amen! And not surprising.
First, the entire wireless world is awaiting this decision.
Second, the ICC is handling the Samsung arbitration, upping the total ante considerably.
Third, hundreds of millions more could be at stake by other wireless manufacturers.
c. There may be dollar limitations in Appendix II. We all know that bureaucracies hate to give up authority, and the higher the amount, the higher the level of approval required.
Therefore, would you concede that IDCC/NOK might not be lumped in the "Most cases" category, and the decision might have to go to plenary session?
O'Dog.
"The work of those arbitral tribunals is monitored by the ICC Court, which meets weekly all year round."
Note the word "monitored". We know they get periodic reports, but the question concerning actual "decisions" was answered quite specifically by the NY office.
I may call Paris next week so we can put this to bed.
One final thought.
Jorma's boyz certainly knew before we did that Paris only has monthly sessions to approve large cases.
That may explain why we've seen no settlement, since This Chicken still has time to swerve.
My eyes are now fixed on the three day Memorial Day Weekend.
Don't think it was me.
I gathered from NY that simple cases might get different treatment. Example, "Smaller cases can be decided in one day". But I'd have to call Paris to find out whether they bypass the monthly approval session, and accelerate the process.
In any case, IDCC/NOK is far from simple, which may be why they allowed themselves plenty of time.
If the Award is to be made on or before May 31, which is a Tuesday, would it not seem logical that Paris would hold its monthly meeting on the preceding Friday, May 27?
This may also answer the question as to why it takes two months to render a final decision.
I hope this will help.
I just talked to NY, who said the following:
Once a decision is in final form (all the T's crossed), the Paris office meets in plenary session to give its final blessing to panel decisions.
These meetings are held on Friday. However, the party did not know whether it was the lst, 2nd Friday, etc., and said we should call Paris to get the exact information.
Bottom line: Friday appears to be the day, but only once a month, rather than 4 times.
Whizz.
I'll drink to that.
Dave.
I would have sworn Malko said that the ICC and NY Office both "meet" every Friday, but I couldn't find the post.
Although "clearing the calendar" may have been implied, the poster wasn't that specific.
If IDCC wins the Award, it may be accompanied by 50-100 pages of legal conclusions.
But when you're the winner, those conclusions only mean something to IDCC lawyers and the patent licensing team.
Shareholders could care less about "why", since those pages will not be made public.
They should have nearly 24 hours to study the section that says, "AWARD".
DR.
Everyone should read this.
I had no idea that platforms, et al., were so complicated.
I've often wondered how Ericy could ring-up such juicy revenue numbers solely on infrastructure.
You had the answer all along.