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.
bulldzr, You would be right in not trading in and out of IDCC using TA. Why? Because it generally takes a considerable amount of time studying TA before someone is proficient enough to day trade or short term trade with it. Instead, you have taken a surer route for one who does not have the knowledge or experience to use the tools.
Having someone use TA to day trade, that doesn't know how, would be akin to giving a welding rig to someone who did not have years of experience with it and telling them to go do some code certified welding. It would probably be a mess. On the other hand, it does not take as long to get enough understanding to better recognize good entry and exit points for the long term trader. I began studying TA because it really frustrated me to see how many times I did not see those points. Like a lot of others here, I have bought instead of sold stock shortly before a fall in share price and likewise I have sold instead of bought stock shortly before a rise in price. After studying TA for a while, I often still continued to make the wrong moves whenever I let emotion (fear or greed) determine my moves instead of the signs seen using TA. IDCC has been like that. I, like you, have been afraid of missing out on the big pop we have waited so long for. Meanwhile, I have made more money on the other stocks that I have not been emotionally involved with although I still do not always make the best moves because I am still learning. That's why I thanked Jim Charts for his post that followed mine. His mention of the VIX and the NAHL helped confirm the signal given by the doji candlestick. It's that kind of experiance that really allows one to be sure about what to do when using TA.
TA takes more time to learn than most would be willing to devote. On the other hand, it would not take any more time, maybe less, than the time many here spend here reading the tea leaves. Personally, I find it very interesting but I also do have trouble finding the time to continue studying it like I should. That’s a mistake on my part, in my opinion because I believe it could help me make more a lot more money. I have several friends who are millionaires as a result of applying TA to their investing strategy, but it is not for everyone.
LOL Bulldzr! Yea I know it looks a little like voodoo but there are a lot of good sites dedicated to TA and if you study it long enough, it really does begin to form a picture.
First; my observation about the doji candlesticks being a potential indicator of the market turning and then Jim Charts' follow up about the NAHL and the VIX. Both posts suggested that the technical indicators leaned in favor of a market turn. Today, we saw a strong move back up. Coincidence?
I will say I consider myself a novice in the study of TA but I have been doing it long enough to conclude that while TA is certainly not infallible, it sure seems to tilt the odds toward the practitioner. I've been reading Jim Charts' post on TA for some time and though it rubs some people the wrong way, he has been right on with his observations using the spectrum of indicators that comprise TA. Yesterday, I saw his post about the other indicators as a confirmation of the one I had already noted. That confirmation added strength to the signals.
Below are some links. The first is to a website that gives an introduction to candlestick charting. The second and third give links a couple charts showing the VIX and NAHL. Notice the blue price channel trend lines I drew and how the price just does touch the lines before reversing. This is very commonly seen in TA and when the price does not turn, it can be equally accurate in predicting a break in the trend and potential a major change in the price action.
If you would be interested in knowing more about TA, just go to a search engine like google and type in "technical analysis" and links to numerous quality sites will appear.
http://www.candlestickforum.com/candlestick_analysis_2.html
http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/display.php?p=36750&u=plumear&a=plumcharts&id=1009
http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/display.php?p=36749&u=plumear&a=plumcharts&id=1009
Good luck bud!
Thank you Ronny.
olddog, I hear what you are saying and it is a very good question. However, if China were to get away with refusing to pay for IPR that is recognized by the rest of the world bodies would that not create quite an issue with the World Trade Commission? Additionally, if China gets away with not paying for the IP of foreign companies, it would leave the US without much else to make money on since we will eventually have allowed virtually all the manufacturing to leave for other countries with China having the lions share. It's hard to imagine that the US can afford to not step in if the practice of ignoring the patents on technology were to become anything more that an exception in China.
"On a separate subject, could you or anyone else, explain how IDCC is expected to benefit from the TD-SCDMA implementation in China. From what I have read, TD-SCDMA is a locally (China) developed standard, with one of the main purposes of the development being the elimination of patent royalties to foreign companies. So far all equipment manufacturing has been done by Chinese companies, or by JVs between Chinese companies and foreign companies. Even if some of their work has been included in the standard who is going to license and pay royalties to IDCC? Somehow I just can't see IDCC filing a patent infringement suit against a Chinese based company in China.
"
Thanks Jim!
Ronny, I don't mean to be picking your posts apart, although I know it must seem so. However, if you don't mind, I would like to also inquire about your most recent post.
You posted; "I think that Nokia has royalty-free use of IDCC's TDD IPR as long as they are licensed with IDCC. Nokia's current license with IDCC ends in 2006, and I think their royalty-free use of our TDD patents would also end on that date."
I have been wondering whether NOK's litigious approach could eventually cause them to loose the rights to IDCC’S TDD IPR. Your post touches on that. Do you have any evidence to support your thinking that NOK could loose those rights if they don’t enter into a new license to cover post 2006? The answer could be somewhat important.
PS; Looks like olddog answered my question already. Thanks!
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8111272
rmarchma, excerpting portions of your conversations with IDCC;
"No, Nokia does not have any exclusive use rights to TDD. IDCC will own the TDD technology that is being jointly developed with Nokia, and we will be able to license this technology to others without any restrictions."
The question I have is; Can NOK also license this technology to others without any restrictions? I know the contract indicates otherwise in some portions but in other portions, seems to indicate that they might be able to. However, if so, could NOK potentially use that fact to continue to deny IDCC royalties from other manufactures?
" We have maintained a very good relationship with Siemens for a long time. They pretty much funded most of our work in B-CDMA, "
Does anyone have anything better than a guess as to whether we could expect to realize any royalties from Siemens? Can Siemens license to other companies the technology they funded the work for and thereby deny IDCC the clear right to obtain royalties? How much "essential" IPR has IDCC patented since the Siemens relationship? If none, is it possible that we could potentially not see any royalties from either Siemens or NOK or their own licensees for TD-SCDMA?
"Janet could not say which specific companies might be good candidates for the equipment manufacturer partnerships (the Business Plan projects two before the end of next year). She did say that the equipment partnerships would be with large, prominent companies."
Could the equipment manufacturer partnerships mentioned be realized in the recent new licensees? If so, this is a positive development following your earlier conversations.
TIA for your answers.
rmarchma, thank you for the response. I have been reading the contract and it seems to me to have a great deal of conflicting language. I hope you are correct in your interpretation.
The DOW and S&P ended forming a doji candlestick today. Hopefully it indicates a market rebound will follow, beginning tomorrow.
mschere,
I'm not sure if I am reading the excerpt from the IDCC/NOK TDD license correctly but if I am interpreting it correctly;
1) NOK owns the technology, not IDCC.
2) IDCC can sell this technology and manufacture products that use it on a NON-EXCLUSIVE, NON-TRANSFERABLE basis. That means to me that it is NOK, not IDCC, that owns this technology and that IDCC cannot license it to anyone else. In fact, we may realize NOTHING from the world-wide spread of TDD. This may mean that the figure posted by sinnet14 reflecting NOK have 32% of the TD-SCDMA IPR and IDCC having 2% is correct.
I have not read the entire contract that you posted but I recall that NOK will be able to use all future TDD technology developed by IDCC royalty free. Will they also be able to license it to other instead of IDCC? Can anyone else shine some light on this?
mschere,
I'm not sure if I am reading the except from the IDCC/NOK TDD license correctly but if I am interpreting it correctly, 1)NOK owns the technology 2)IDCC can sell this technology and manufacture products that use it on a NON-EXCLUSIVE
I wonder if the amount of TDD IPR being attributed to NOK (32%) is actually the TDD technology that IDCC developed under contract. IDCC still owns the right to license that tech.. Of course we have not seen the contract and hopefully IDCC did not give NOK rights to the level that they could indemnify others who cross licensed with them, similar to the QCOM licensing fiasco. If not, our excitement has to be a little tempered by the fact that IDCC will not get ANY royalties for TDD from NOK. Based on NOK's action of late, one would have to expect that this will become another stone in NOK's stonewalling.
I wonder if the amount of TDD IPR as being attributed to NOK is actually the TDD technology that IDCC developed under contract. IDCC still owns the right to licence that tech.. Of course we have not seen the contract and hopefully IDCC did not give NOK right to the level that they could idmnify others who cross licenced with them, similar to the QCOM
Thanks rmarchma. I now remember more about the thread including the remark that the picture included a Christmas tree, somewhat dating it. Regardless, it may indicate that the have been discussions about IDCC's role with TD-SCDMA. Perhaps China was asking for help in making TD-SCDMA happen. One way or the other, it's hard to imagine that China would not recognize that IDCC would be expecting some sort of reward for being involved, such as recognition of IPR along with the associated royalties. Do you think there is any possible connection between the recent licencing activities and the recent meetings. I recognize it would conjecture on your part, of course.
JimLur,
I seem to recall a couple of months ago a post from a board member concerning a reported meeting between a very high Chinese official and an officer of IDCC. Little else was mentioned since but it has seemed significant to me that since then IDCC has licenses two different manufacturers that, also if I recall correctly, will be manufacturing equipment that, among other things, will be compliant with TD-SCDMA standards. Perhaps someone can verify whether my memory is correct. If it is, it may provide some insight into the mentioned meetings as well as a clue as to whether IDCC will be getting royalties for the standard.
JimLur, I sure would love to see the details of that deposition! If that testimony is substantiated, I can't help but think that it will heavily influence the judge in IDCC's favor. Would this be a case of Lucent shooting itself in the foot with the smoking gun?
Could the judge award damages if the the testimony was substantiated?
Could this be the item that brings Lucent to the agreement table? IMO, we just may suddenly see some progress on the agreement front.
mschere, I expect that you are correct but consider what would happen if Lucent is forced to take a license with Tantivy due to a loss in court or settlement. At that point, I would imagine IDCC would offer a broader license that would include the other flavors of 3G to Lucent in lieu of one that only included Tantivys' IPR. In such a case, the balance of IDCC's IPR could, in effect, be obtained at a relative discount. If Lucent took advantage of that bargain, they then would potentially be the trigger that M3S alluded to. Do you agree?
"IMO:A Tantivy Court Decision in favor of Tantivy will ONLY trigger Lucent's financial obligation to Tantivy!"
I too have no problem with Harry selling shares. The only thing I don't understand is that some members feel that there is something wrong with reading in some meaning to the act. When I see 2 directors selling significant portions of the shares they hold, I tend to make judgments based on those actions. Mschere says that it the action was cross selling handled by an institution or market maker. If I'm not incorrect, Hilliard Lyons is a market maker in IDCC. They issued a downgrade on the stock to a long term buy after the time that that the sell should have been completed. Did they handle the sale? Did they read anything into it? I don't know but, like everyone else, I try to connect the dots.
As I pointed out earlier, I wonder about the phenomenon of Harry's sale having the extreme good fortune of occurring at the same time there is a sudden spike in volume and price. It makes me say hmmmn! Who knows; perhaps it is a good sign that an institutional buyer is purchasing shares for the long term and would not be concerned when they found out that a PRE-PLANNED sale by the CEO represented the shares they bought. There is no question that the series of recent events represents positive things for IDCC in the long term. On the other hand, it seems equally reasonable to determine that the sales should temper the enthusiasm of those that think that we are about to reach the culmination of our years of waiting. Additionally, since I only originally bought shares of IDCC for the purpose of making money, I am cheering those that are working this stock to their benefit. They are no different than HC. It’s kind of humorous when I think of how many times I’ve seen someone say “Just go sell your shares” because while they probably did and then bought back later, often at a lower price, while those of us that have been holding are doing nothing but waiting. After all, you’ve made nothing until you’ve sold your shares. Question: What makes one smarter; understanding IDCC and realizing the potential, or, buying and selling the stock and making a bunch of money? IMO, HC knows the answer!
We have been on the cusp of a breakout recently. If that had occurred, IMO, we would have begun to see very appreciable share price improvement. From a TA standpoint, this sale came at a very poor time for the rest of us who have actually purchased their shares and have been patiently waiting. I had been very close to purchasing more shares but obviously I have now reconsidered that idea. How many others?
Members here that get angry when other board members announce they have sold and taken some profit should consider this news. Why is GE Jim any different when he daytrades? I will seriously have to study my status as a long term holder.
What is most interesting is the unnatural coincidence that the 100,000 PLANNED share dumping happened to coincide on a day that the price and volume spiked like it did. Wasn't there also a downgrade issued yesterday? Awfully curious events. Or am I also missing something?
It's also very difficult to discount two different director's sales of stock of this magnitude if one were to believe that good things are very close. Troubling to think about.
I will be quite surprised if the share price does not act negatively to this news.
revlis, thanks for the clarification.
my3sons87,
I have been unclear about IDCC's patent declarations in WiMax. While I am aware that Brian K. chairs the committee, do we know what IPR IDCC has in this standard?
revlis,
To make sure I understand; are you saying that the Motorola patent is a continuation of IDCC's 536 patent and that Motorola acknowledges that fact?
I believe we will see a PR soon enough. For best positive impact IMO, you would want to stagger the publicity in order to lengthen it out.
It also appears to me that this could be a setup for a bigger announcement. The first announcement would be to get everyone’s attention so that all eyes were focused on IDCC when the bigger announcement came. It would also have the effect of somewhat taking the slack out of the price so there would be less resistance to an upward move. Now I will admit that this post contains some wishful thinking but it would still be a good strategy if in fact there is another announcement coming on the heels of this one.
captainslog, Good enough for me.
I also know what you mean about the hard lessons. While I am not particularly technologically able, I have certainly learned more about investing. Most notably, I have truly learned the meaning of the warning; "Do not fall in love with a stock" LOL! I can tell you are frustrated and I don't blame you as there are many others, including myself, that are in the same boat. Perhaps I shouldn't have responded to your post as I did not address it with the earlier thread between you and mschere in mind. However, on the other hand, the post I did respond to seemed addressed to all and therefore appeared to be an invitation for my response. No offence intended though as the question I posed to you was more rhetorical than anything else. Good luck. I hope your continued persistence with IDCC is fruitful.
captainslog, IMO, this board is used by most to gather the information needed to help them with their decisions concerning investing in IDCC. They, of course, are also discussing that information. If there were not members posting information, there would be little reason to visit here.
Why does it bother you that certain members, such as mschere, spend as much time as they do posting information? Why not skip over it if you find no interest in reading it? I don't read all of mschere's posts in entirety and yet I do find interesting facts within them. I often find as much or more information in the responses. The balance is found in the responses, as it should be. However, there is no need to critisize. If it is his hobby, what is wrong with that? The truth is that there are many here, whether they realize it or not, have been engaging in the discussions on this board as a hobby for years. And yes, most have been disappointed, up until now, with the financial results. But, hey!, that's the nature of investing. I guess the day that everyone decides there is no future potential left in IDCC, everyone will quit posting here. Apparently that has not happened yet.
That brings up the question; why are you here still here? Is this a hobby or do you still see some potential. Is there another reason?
Jim_Charts, again, as always, thanks for posting those. Very illuminating.
OT: I have close family, friends and customers all along the affected area of the hurricane from New Orleans to Mobile. Some are already moving in with us or the rest of our families that are fortunate to be more out of harms way. The knowledge that the prayers of others are there is truly meaningful. The response of organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army is also truly wonderful. I’m sure everyone is also aware that a similar grass roots response is going on among various local groups ranging from churches to fraternal organizations. This is the best of America. For us, there are many agonizing things to consider, as many people, including those that I have mentioned, have either lost everything or have had significant disruption in their lives. Still, they feel very grateful that we have what we do. We have our lives, each other, and the realization that there are in fact many that are much worse off. There is a tremendous sense of community among those that are closest to this tragedy.
For me and my immediate family, as we split our time between helping and continuing on with our own lives, the most disturbing element has been how this disaster seems to be beginning to tear Americans apart from each other elsewhere in the country. For some reason, it seems that people are wanting assign blame to various parties as though they had something to do with the disaster or that there is not enough concern and that is reflected by what they consider to be a slow reaction. This emotional venting is to be expected from those most unfortunate individuals who either did not or could not escape from the direct impact and who have witnessed the things that they have. It is also understandable that members of the media that are at ground zero would empathize with the victims they are interacting with. What I don’t understand is the chiming in from individuals and groups that are not in the middle of it. The truth is that the up to this point in the relief effort, there has existed a logistical nightmare with roads being impassable due to downed trees, power lines, debris and flooding Finding fuel has been a full time job at best and a near impossibility in some areas. .I certainly hope that reasonable people realize that the flare-ups in criminal activity are a reflection of societal problems rather than something that can be blamed on our various government entities. Those that were around to witness the aftermath of Hurricane Camille can also remember the National Guard presence that was also necessary then to maintain order and to prevent criminal activity.
My prayer is that the people that are viewing this from the outside will refrain from using this event to find fault and avoid political posturing and instead do what they can as Americans to at least provide moral support. The people on the Gulf Coast need it. There will be plenty of time later for examining what could have been done better by armchair quarterbacks who have the advantage of hindsight vision.
Is there something you can do as a concerned citizen? There are probably plenty of things but one comes to mind. Find a way to reduce your personal usage of fuel. It is evident that currently there is a fuel crisis at least in the southeastern U.S.. There are at least ten refineries that have been disabled and will not be up and running for AT LEAST a month. That, my friends, is a load of refined oil products that will not be in the pipeline for that period. Trucking companies that are part of the economic lifeblood of our country are having trouble securing enough fuel to make their runs. Those who cannot avoid using gasoline are finding themselves paying continually higher prices and are likely to see a widening occurrence of shortages. If you have employees who can work via their computer at home, consider whether that is a viable option. Ask your boss about that idea if you are an employee. Sales people; temporarily try to stay in contact with your customers by phone so that you can curtail driving. Car pool to work. Ride a bike to your friends house around the corner when go to visit. Will it help? If enough people do it, it can. If everyone in the country were to cut out driving one day a week for a short period, we would see supply surge, fuel prices drop and yes, even stock prices such as IDCC go up. Please consider this idea. Discuss it with your friends. In my mind, it could truly be a matter of national security because if something is not done, it could end up have very negative ramifications for our economy.
mschere, that is an interesting post. certainly could tie into the statement by IDCC about chip production. We could possibly have a very significant partner. Thanks
I believe Jim is right about this being a critical time. IDCC has been holding up well compared to the rest of the market but the downturn in the overall market is weighing on IDCC. Today’s announcement hopefully will provide some lift but if the rest of the market keeps sliding, IDCC will need some significant announcements to keep it heading in a positive direction or at least hold its range. I am posting some charts to illustrate some of the technical indicators. (Jim, finally figured out how to post these charts!)
In the 6 month daily chart, you can see that IDCC has been traveling upward within a price channel that has been meeting resistance around 18.75. The bottom uptrend line and the line of resistance is forming an ascending triangle accompanied by relatively weak volume. As a formation like this reaches its point, it will generally either break resistance to the upside or drop below the triangle. An increase in volume will normally accompany either move. If it breaks to the upside, the price channel should hold intact up to the next significant resistance level. If it breaks below, the volume will generally carry the price below its previous support and it could become much more tied to the direction of the market unless a positive fundamental development occurs. If, after making a move in either direction, it turns and reverses the triangle breakout, that move can often be very strong.
The overall market technicals have very recently been favoring a breakout to the downside. Until a few days ago, IDCC has been under accumulation as indicated by the CMF, accumulation/distribution and OBV. As the rest of the market has been breaking down, those indicators have weakened. Note the relative strength has been showing a weakening for a little longer than the others. We’re nearly oversold in the stochastics and along with today’s guidance we may have enough strength to allow the uptrend line to continue providing support but solid news is what is really needed to generate enough volume to overcome the resistance at $18.75 / $19.00.
http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/display.php?p=36060&u=plumear&a=plumcharts&id=1009
I am also including a 20 day /30 min chart to get a little better look at the weakness that has been occurring. Today we hit near the same low as August 16 again providing some support along with the uptrend line. One thing that's interesting is the big buys at the end of each day. It appears someone is buying in anticipation to a news release.
http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/display.php?p=36062&u=plumear&a=plumcharts&id=1009
The weekly chart shows that we have another triangle formation to resolve later if we make it past this one. If this one breaks to the upside, it will be a very positive development technically IMO.
http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/display.php?p=36063&u=plumear&a=plumcharts&id=1009
OT: bulldzr, In the years I have seen you posting, I have come to know that you are a good and decent person and I'm sorry if my post came across as impugning your intentions or position. That was not my intention. I did take the opportunity to make a statement however even if it wasn’t directed to you specifically.
If I have a pastime that I spend more time at than any other, it is the study of current world events. I devote a considerable amount of time perusing world news and intelligence reports via the avenues provided by the internet.
Sadly, most of the public, IMO, has no idea just how viable Al Qaida is still. There is absolutely no way that a person could adequately respond to your post on an internet message board because the discussion of the subject would fill entirely too many pages. Suffice it to say though that Al Qaida is not an organization with some sort of central control. Instead, it is a movement born of the poverty and repression found in much of the Arab world due to its oppressive dictatorships and whose population finds it’s only education in schools that teach extreme religious fanaticism along with an undying hatred for Israel. There are figureheads such as Bin Laden and al Zarqawi of course, who have given this movement its focus but they are not the foundation. Al Qaida is like the Hydra. If you cut off one head, another, or perhaps two, reappears in its place. The actions of the US are also not the reason for the movement and its growth even though there does exist a certain amount of jealousy of American power and wealth. Additionally, the United States is hated because it has attempted the thankless task of brokering peace in this part of the world when pleasing everyone with the outcome is completely impossible due to the intractable positions of elements of the two sides. This issue began long before the administration of George Bush.
Unfortunately, the threat of Al Qaida has been growing for a lot longer than most of the average population is aware and the world only began to really recognize it beginning on September 11, 2001. There were a considerable number of warnings on earlier occasions such as when the marine barracks were bombed in Beirut, when American soldiers were slaughtered in Somalia, the embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, the tanker bomb that destroyed the American military housing complex in Saudi Arabia and on and on. It continues today with train bombs in France, subway bombs in England and other public bombings in places like Indonesia and Israel. There have been many more attempts that have been thwarted than have succeeded. All this has been the work of Al Qaida and organizations associated with it. It also offers proof that it is not just an American problem.
Regretably though, partly because the general population does not fully appreciate the threat, the movement is very much alive and very strong evidence exist that Al Qaida has ambitions that could make the horror of 9-11 seem minor in comparison. In fact, world terrorism could prove to be the greatest threat the free world has ever encountered. The effort to defend ourselves is not one that can be abandoned because the danger will not go away on its own. What most don’t understand is that the war in Iraq, just like Afghanistan, is not just about overthrowing Saddam but is rather an effort to eliminate the root of the problem. The US hopes to provide the beginnings of freedom and democracy and a stable economy that can help lead the people of the region away from the despair and despotism that Al Qaida feeds on. The hope is that if such freedom is born in Iraq, it could possibly spread on its own to the rest of that part of the world. That Al Qaida does not want this to happen is fully evidenced in the resistance of the terrorist organization that is completely willing to slaughter even the Iraqi people themselves in pursuit of their goals.
When the US abandoned Somalia following the deaths of American soldiers in the streets there, Bin Laden and his cohorts found confirmation that the Americans did not have the stomach for what happens when it is attacked and that belief has guided them and their actions ever since. George Bush is completely aware of this and knows that this country must take a stand or it will be us instead of Al Qaida that will be defeated. This will not be like Vietnam where we pull out and, like that war, simply becomes part of our history. If we do not finish the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorist will become even more emboldened and we will be fighting it again and again someplace else including our home soil.
robweis; that was an interesting observation.
bulldzr, Market reports today indicated that the market retreated when oil prices spiked back to over $66.00/barrel after reports of terrorist damage to the electrical end of the pumping stations where Iraqi oil is pumped onto the tankers in their port. Last week the northern pipeline was hit temporarily halting flow. Ever since oil rose to over $50.00/barrel, the stock market has dropped each time it get up over another $1.00 above it's previous high. Each time the price of oil drops, the market jumps back up. The economy is doing great despite the high prices of oil and the market wants to continue upward but the market also knows that the economy is not immune to the effect of high oil prices. Al Qaida knows this also and it is part of their plan to damage the world economy as well as the stock market through such actions. They also hope to create enough pressure through the public to cause the US to pull out. They do not have to win on the battlefield if they can win by getting public opinion working for them. It's apparent that their plan is working too.
LOL!
L2V, payoffs and kickbacks are common in Europe. I'm not sure if it still is, but if not, it fairly recently was legal in European countries to write off such expense on your taxes. They have a much more liberal view of influencing businesses and I suppose government than here in the states. I will try and find a website that has info on this as soon as I can but I know I have seen articles about this fairly recently.
OT: walldiver, normally I don't get involved in a discussion like this but I think your response deserves another. Concerning McDonalds and their settlement of nearly 100 cases of hot coffee complaints; in the business I'm in, I am involved with a variety of companies that intersect with the public and I am aware of many cases where it is most common to settle a lawsuit without really challenging it because it is by far the cheapest way out. For a worldwide company such as McDonalds, with tens of thousands of locations, this is standard practice. The cost of defending is much more expensive that settling, especially if the plaintiff will accept a reasonable amount. (Less than the cost of defending) Unfortunately, the numbers of lawsuits that do exist are largely the result of that fact. It's something of a lottery for some lawyers. (Not most of course) The more suits you have filed, the greater chance you have of a payoff. It's the reason we see billboards by lawyers advertising for more lotto tickets..err..I mean..people that have been faulted. IMO, one of the serious issues that have arisen out of stories and cases such as this is the damage done to the reputations of the many fair, decent and honest people that practice law. I have had people tell me; “they don’t think lawyers are completely selfish. They realize that lawyers are not always just thinking of themselves when they file a suit because those lawyers recognize that even if they lose, good has come from it. After all, another lawyer did get paid to defend the other party”. This perception is not good but unfortunately it is somewhat common and is the basis for the calls for tort reforms we are seeing.
Again concerning McDonalds coffee, it's common knowledge that when you make a cup of coffee or tea, you bring the water to a boiling point to release the coffee or tea from its grinds or leaves. There is no malfeasance or dishonest intent on the part of a restaurant when this is done. Water boils at 212 degrees. (less at higher altitudes.) Yes, this is hot enough to burn you if you pour it on yourself, but the vast majority of the population knows this if they ever have had a cup before. While some people do like cold coffee, most do not and prefer if hot. After the McDonalds lawsuit, almost all restaurants continue to serve their coffee hot because that is what the public wants. Now however, there is a sign at the pull up window or on the cup that states the obvious; "Coffee is served hot". You can also see it in restaurant menus. The lack of that sign before the McDonalds suit was filed, IMO, did not justify the judgment that was rendered. When you hear of people bringing up that infamous case, it is because most people agree. It’s also the reason we see many other warning signs that are ridiculous because of their obviousness.
I know nothing about the Vioxx case. Hopefully justice rather than injustice was served. There are reasons to wonder though. You may or may not be aware of some recent developments in the long running saga of asbestosis and silicosis lawsuits. We are likely to see a wave of reversals due to these events. It has recently come to light through court testimony that most of the diagnosis’s of those diseases were done by doctors that sometimes would provide hundreds of such diagnosis’s in a single day, generally spending only moments looking at an x-ray before deciding that cases were positive even though there are other factors that can give the same x-ray result. The lid began to come off when it was discovered that large numbers of patients that had already been diagnosed with asbestosis as part of one lawsuit were later also diagnosed with silicosis FROM THE SAME X-RAY BY THE SAME DOCTORS as part of another lawsuit. The problem with this fact is that it turns out that the incidence of a person having both diseases is an extreme statistical rarity. The doctors involved are now recanting their years of diagnoses. Evidence has emerged that they were paid by the companies gathering the evidence for the law groups, using a method where they received payment only for each positive case. Unfortunately, as Ghors has pointed out, it’s too late to reverse the damage to the companies that were victims.
I'm aghast!
I'm not even familiar with the Secret Decoder Ring but the reactions of those that are have really gotten me worked up. Sitting here with my pants tucked into my knee-high boots, I realize something terrible must be going on in Laranger's life to cause him to make such a serious error in judgement! I can assure you that if I ever was to be judged worthy of possessing a treasure that equaled just the shadow of the SDR,.....Well,...I would certainly be more careful!
With all due respect, of course, Laranger.
mschere, my comment was not a result of knowledge of court deadlines but rather my perspective of past legal actions that have continually resulted in delays. It seems to me that each one of these claims by NOK must be addressed and that takes time. I infer from your post that this cannot happen due to court scheduling. I sincerely hope that this is the case. If so, thank you and laranger for pointing it out.
This may be more of NOK's delay tactics since it will cause more motions and replys to be filed with countering filings. The judge will hopefully see through NOK's strategy of delay, delay, delay.
IMO, this action by NOK is like buying a raffle ticket that guarantees that you win something. The main prizes are:
1) The judge throws out the arbitration award
2) The judge modifies the award in NOK's favor
3) The judge returns the award back to the ICC for further consideration with NOK, at minimum, benefiting from the delay.
If NOK is unsuccessful in winning in court, they will still get the prize of having delayed the actual payment to IDCC. The will serve to weaken IDCC by also delaying other paying licensees and also put NOK in a strengthened position when arguing that royalty rates be capped at 5%. It would be somewhat difficult to do that after they are already paying IDCC their portion. In such a situation, they would be suggesting that in order to cap the rates, they would have to reduce the amount that some companies like IDCC were already getting and/or to see to it that companies that claimed to have an equivalent amount of IPR, more or less, not get the equivalent amount of royalties.
IMO, IDCC must somehow convey to the judges that NOK is engaging in practices that are not designed to achieve justice but rather are designed to destroy other companies for the benefit of NOK, through a total abuse of the judicial process.