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.
Dan.
No mention of amortization of internal patents.
Dan.
The worst quarter in two years, according to CNBC.
BTW, a 10,000 block at the close took us to 15.32.
IQ.
Do you find it unusual that six people were involved in this patent?
I haven't paid that much attention in the past, but the number of people alone, would seem to create an aura of importance.
Dave.
WOW.
Five guys and a gal invented that one!
Take that Jorma!
Associated Press
Barr, Kos Pharma in Talks to Settle Suit
Wednesday March 30, 8:56 am ET
Barr, Kos Pharmaceuticals in Talks to Settle Patent Litigation Regarding Kos' Niaspan Drug
WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J. (AP) -- Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kos Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Wednesday they are in talks to settle outstanding patent litigation regarding Kos' cholesterol reducing drug Niaspan.
Nasdaq-listed shares of Kos shot up $6.46, or 20 percent, to $39.31 in premarket activity. Barr shares closed Tuesday at $47.68 on the New York Stock Exchange.
The case is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The companies said they expect the District Court to discontinue and halt all proceedings to allow the parties to negotiate a definitive settlement agreement.
If an agreement isn't reached, Barr and Cranbury, N.J.-based Kos will have the right to have the matter reactivated.
On March 9, Barr reported that Kos Pharmaceuticals filed for a restraining order to block Barr from launching a generic version of Niaspan. The patent dispute was scheduled to go to trial in February 2006.
The Food and Drug Administration has tentatively approved Barr's generic version in three doses, with final approval expected once Kos' 30-month stay has expired. Niaspan posted 2004 sales of about $380 million.
Good nite, Miller.
Jim.
I been watching Level II carefully for the past two days, and it reminded me of when we were on the AMEX.
The Big Boyz walked it down, let the price rise, walked it down again, over and over.
The markets didn't cooperate, but there were clear signs that they weren't operating normally when it came to IDCC.
Let's hope they'll get the shares they want, and the worm turns on or after Thursday.
Lord Miller.
Let's beat it to death, one more time.
You said, "dndodd...other boards? (plural) Other than atomic bob's please name another board. Please stick to the facts and don't stretch the truth. This is the problem with you people...."
We're not much brag about on Yahoo, but we like it. A few hundred of your posts are still there.
Damn, Miller!
If that's a challenge, have at it!
I think I can hold my own.
"I must be hitting a nerve if you've reached the point of calling names yet again."
Oh. Did someone stop?
Damn, Dan.
Motorola is down too.
What'll we do?
NOK is down.
Someone knows something.
Hardball.
The industry needs more "one-stop shopping", where patents are concerned.
If you wanted to enter the cell phone business, you'd first have to stop in San Diego and talk to Irwin.
After dedicating a large chunk of your revenue to QCOM, you're patent people would have to check whether you need to license with Ericy, Texas Instruments, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG, IDCC, and a host of others.
The patent battles will continue, with second and third tier players taking the hindmost, until consolidation eventually solves the problem.
MSCHERE.
The faster Samsung and LG go, the behinder NOK gets.
Nokia is bringing new phones to the U.S. market, but who's patents will they be using to compete with Samsung, LG and Motorola, and will they be "right" this time around?
Although not published in Dan's post, Nokia's share in February has to be below 18%, which should be shaking the rafters in Espoo.
It's high time that Jorma got down to business, and stopped spending so much time with his lawyers.
Dan.
Playing "catchup" is no fun.
In view of the latest U.S. market figures, portions of that little interview by IBD with NOK's CFO, Simonson bear repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simonson: "We have embraced co-branding and customization. That's a big change for Nokia. Our dialogue with some of them (Verizon and Sprint) has improved.
We had a bit of butting heads with some operators a year ago. We weren't embracing co-branding."
IBD: "About half of Nokia's new U.S. models are clamshell types. But Nokia was late realizing that many consumers prefer clamshell models. How could that happen to a market-savvy firm like Nokia?"
Simonson: "We just missed it. The signs were there. But we weren't acting on it. We were ignoring it for some reason, or were in denial for some reason.
We went through that internally, with no punches pulled. We diagnosed why we let it happen. The great thing about Nokia is we're a pragmatic learning organization."
Dan. Great news!
U.S. Market:
Motorola, first place.
Sam, second.
Nokia, third.
Corner The Snake!
Gosh.
Did someone buy too?
MTS.
They're usually free, when there's three feet of water. LOL.
Sony loses patent infringment suit:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Associated Press
Sony Ordered to Pay PlayStation2 Damages
Sunday March 27, 11:57 pm ET
By Yuri Kageyama, AP Business Writer
Sony's Video Game Unit Ordered to Pay $90.7M in Damages Over PlayStation2 Lawsuit
TOKYO (AP) -- Japanese electronics giant Sony Corp.'s video game unit has been ordered to pay $90.7 million in damages over a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States related to the PlayStation2 console, the company said Monday.
But the Tokyo-based company will fight the decision by the federal district court in Oakland, California, and appeal to the U.S. High Court, a Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. spokesman said on condition of anonymity.
In the March 24 decision, Sony Computer Entertainment was ordered to pay damages to Immersion Corp., based in San Jose, California, which develops and licenses digital technology.
In a 2002 lawsuit, Immersion accused Sony of patent infringement with the Dual Shock controller for the PlayStation and PlayStation 2. Dual Shock makes the controller shake in time with what's going on in the game.
Sony denies that Dual Shock violates Immersion's patents, the Sony Computer Entertainment spokesman said. He said he could not give more details because the lawsuit is pending.
The district court decision included an order to suspend PlayStation sales but that order does not hold while an appeal is being heard. Sony will continue to sell its game machines in the United States, the spokesman said.
Sony's PlayStation platform is the No. 1 home game console in the world.
L2V.
And I'm still chewing on this one:
"Key point is that whatever that painfully cheap pre-2002 2G rate was, InterDigital introduced some HIGHER 2G rates for conforming products sold from Jan 1, 2002 forward."
Could this be part of Jorma's problem?
Even some of our analysts expected a settlement with Ericy in the hundreds of millions.
And even though the basis for that amount may have been explained to Heir Ollila, he is being asked to pay a far higher amount.
Add that to his frustrations over QCOM's strangle-hold, and you have the makings for a bitter battle.
A little old, but I love this interview with mighty Nokiia's CFO.
While Nokia is a bully, or a mover-and-shaker to many, it's just another not-so-savvy supplier in America.
I've edited-out some wording to highlight NOK's mistakes in the U. S. market, and added some smart-a$$ remarks in parentheses:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Investor's Business Daily
Corporate America A Key Nokia Target
Wednesday March 16, 7:00 pm ET
Reinhardt Krause
The No. 1 maker of mobile phones reaps only 12% of its revenue from the U.S., mostly sales to consumers.
Richard Simonson, Nokia's chief financial officer, recently spoke with IBD about Nokia's U.S. goals.
IBD: "When will more Nokia products debut first in the U.S. rather than in other countries?"
Simonson: "We don't have the same market voice in the U.S. that we have in Europe, Asia and Latin America." (Yeah. That's our point dude, in case you haven't noticed).
(Mistake #1). "We're taking steps to address that.
The U.S. didn't fit easily into that model, because it had multiple standards (GSM and CDMA). In 2005, Nokia plans to roll out some 40 phones and devices geared to U.S. consumers.
and, frankly, the U.S. has been quite a bit behind in mobility."
(Mistake #2). "We're trying to work closer with Verizon and Sprint (CDMA carriers), as well as Cingular and T-Mobile (GSM carriers)." (So, you're saying you thought the name "Nokia" would be enough to get them knocking on your door, and they gave you the finger!).
IBD: "Will those products involve corporate and other enterprise customers?"
Simonson: "The enterprise solutions group is very
U.S.-centric. Our enterprise solutions group is looking at U.S. companies. They're often ahead in mobility." (Gee. We thought you just said the U.S. was quite a bit behind in mobility).
IBD: "While Nokia is a big supplier of GSM phones, how's it doing in CDMA vs. five years ago?"
(Mistake #3). Simonson: "We really upped our investment in CDMA products and research and development. That started us on a path of going from 4% market share, to 8%, to around 12%-15%. (No hunching, amigo. Our figures show 12%, not 15%).
That was the result of us saying we've just got to get more serious about it (CDMA) and put resources there. But it's a clear fact we're underrepresented in mid- and high-end products. We're not on the cutting edge on CDMA. We need to address that. We'll be pragmatic about how we do it."
IBD: "Some analysts say the branding power of phone suppliers is fading. A few carriers are rolling out phones under their own label."
(Mistake #4). Simonson: "We have embraced co-branding and customization. That's a big change for Nokia. Our dialogue with some of them (Verizon and Sprint) has improved. We had a bit of butting heads with some operators a year ago. We weren't embracing co-branding." (A little tougher than bullying small patent companies, eh bucko!).
IBD: "About half of Nokia's new U.S. models are clamshell types. But Nokia was late realizing that many consumers prefer clamshell models. How could that happen to a market-savvy firm like Nokia?"
(Mistake #5). Simonson: "We just missed it. The signs were there. But we weren't acting on it. We were ignoring it for some reason or were in denial for some reason. (Will the real reason please stand up!).
We went through that internally, with no punches pulled. We diagnosed why we let it happen. The great thing about Nokia is we're a pragmatic learning organization." (Whoops. There's that word "pragmatic" again. How did you get this far without it?).
L2V.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
The parties sit around the table and agree that NOK gets 30 more days.
Then it's IDCC's turn and, since NOK got about 60 days to reply, one would think 30 days would be a slam dunk.
This stop and go stuff is more than a little irritating.
JK.
NOK gets an extra thirty days, which is not unusual, in light of IDCC's extension.
But why did the parties agree that IDCC only gets 15 days to respond, even though IDCC hasn't the slightest idea what NOK's reponse will look like.
Your bio indicates that you have a responsible position, which may include connections within the cell phone industry.
"Program Manager-Logistics, Advanced Communications."
But your last post did nothing to substantiate your prediction, and makes one wonder whether you "play" at the managers' game:
"My statement was not based on calling anyone associated with the matter, however it is a product of my gumshoe tactics."
Frankly, I think we'd all prefer that you said nothing, unless you're prepared to back up your gumshoe revelations with something concrete.
As each month passes, more of those 5,700 applied-for patents get approved. Truly a staggering number to keep track of.
Regardless of what happens with the arbitration, the noose is slowly tightening around Jorma's neck, and QCOM must be getting a little uneasy.
I'd sure like to know how we stack up against Q at this stage of the game. I'm sure they're monitoring the patent approval situation, and wondering how they can get a piece of the action.
Looks like a beaut!
I don't have the slightest idea what it means, but I'd like to see Jorma try to get around this one. LOL.
Here's what the NAZ shows:
16.01 $ 16.12 8748
16.01 $ 16.08 100
16.01 $ 16.08 100
16.01 $ 16.09 565
16.01 $ 16.10 100
16.01 $ 16.10 1000
16.00 $ 16.10 300
16.00 $ 16.10 100
16.00 $ 16.10 100
16.00 $ 16.10 100
16.00 $ 16.10 100
Clarence.
Scusa. The devil made me do it. 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).
Dear Panel.
You have the power, the experience, and the knowledge to handle the IDCC/NOK arbitration.
We will give you 6 months to finalize the Terms of Reference, examine evidence, hold hearings, and make a final decision on an Award.
After you send your decision to us for review, we will not second-guess your decision. However, we will take three months to decide whether you made any typos.
Sincerely,
Paris
Yeah. I see that now.
Thanks.
I've followed Cramer for a long time.
He's a crazy dude, but often sticks up for the underdog.
But he'd probably have to do too much DD to intelligently comment on IDCC.
Wilco.
A little confusing.
The 100,000 doesn't show on Sinnet's site.
Thanks Sinnet.
Dan. Waterhouse shows 415,000, which matches Level II.
Sinnet.
I use the NAZ site.
Which one are you using?
Dan.
Are these AHT?
I show no trades.
Loop.
Smoke 'em if 'ya gottem'.
It's hard to escape the probability that both parties have asked for an extension.
I think there's universal agreement that one party could not do so, and Jim has confirmed with the ICC that requests for extension by the parties are not unusual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Article 24
Time Limit for the Award
1
The time limit within which the Arbitral Tribunal must render its final Award is six months. Such time limit shall start to run from the date of the last signature by the Arbitral Tribunal or of the parties of the Terms of Reference, or, in the case of application of Article 18(3), the date of the notification to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Secretariat of the approval of the Terms of Reference by the Court.
2
The Court may extend this time limit pursuant to a reasoned request from the Arbitral Tribunal or on its own initiative if it decides it is necessary to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Although it's already been beaten to death, if the "speedy ICC" wants a decision within 6 months of the signing of the Terms of Reference, taking two and one half months to review that decision, makes little sense.
We all respect your opinion.
But if the ICC says they can't peek, and the rules say they can't peek, why do you think they'll get a look?
Thanks, O'Dog.
"Amicable"? Not in the Finnish dictionary!
Not in Jorma's vocabulary!
Back to the drawing board.
Jim.
In the absence of the big cheese, I talked to a deputy.
She seemed sure there would be no advance notice, and characterized the ADR proceeding as a mediation, rather than an arbitration.
However, the more MSCHERE and O'Dog keep digging up bones about "Complex" cases, the more I'm hoping she's wrong.
If there's a more difficult road to take, we all know Jorma would take it.