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.
MSCHERE.
I just talked to the ICC.
There is no advance notice of a decision when it comes to binding arbitration.
The advance notice in Alternative Dispute Resolution is given so the parties can make sure that the wording in their agreement is accurate, prior to submitting to Paris.
MSCHERE.
I don't know.
But if they did, wouldn't that be a pre-arbitration matter?
Don't get me wrong.
I'd be delighted if they receive a draft.
And I agree with your suggestion that a call to the ICC might clear up the question.
Jim has talked to them before. Maybe he'll help.
I could well be wrong.
But my reading indicates that if one party raises a question of dispute, the top dogs meet and try to resolve the matter.
Failing to do so, one party can then request arbitration.
Thereafter, the rules of arbitration apply.
MSCHERE's reference appears to concern Alternative Dispute Resolution, not arbitration.
Is he having a little fun with us?
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Given the above procedure, it would seem improbable that the panel would reveal its decision prior to review by Paris.
Right on, DD.
But it beats me why this board has changed in the last 48 hours.
Damn. By the tone of most posts, you would think we lost in Delaware, lost the arbitration, lost in the UK, lost the appeal.
But we haven't lost a thing yet, and are at the most critical point in IDCC's history.
Loyal longs like you and Loop need to stick together.
Peace.
Yeah.
Someone got stuck for a 200 share purchase.
Probably hit the wrong button.
Yeah.
I wonder if Forbes has any openings for another chicken-$hit reporter.
If I could copy that paragraph, I'd send it to them.
MSCHERE. You were right, and most of us agreed.
But you know how it goes.
In the past,
when NOK's actions seemed most transparent,
when logic led us only in one direction,
our "solid" observations have oft times gone astray.
Each day, however, logic is taking a back seat to facts, which is the way I like it. LOL.
Loop.
My, how fast things can change.
A couple of weeks ago, we were looking for a standard denial of all of Nokia's allegations. Ever DR said things looked a little scary.
Now. . . . the shot heard round the world. As Imalurker often says, "Beautiful, just beautiful!".
Yeah. It's not over till the polecat sings. But it appears that Emperor Ollila has fewer clothes than yesterday.
Jim.
I don't know about the lawyers, but I'm exhausted after reading those 100 pages.
JK was right. IDCC took off the gloves.
Moreover, they slammed more than a few well-placed knees right where it hoits Jorma the most!
Bravo, Fulbright & Jaworski!
Bravo, IHUB and all the contributors!
Are you caballeros getting the same feeling I am?
Could the desperados from Finland have really stubbed their toes that badly?
Even if IDCC's motion isn't granted, it looks like the seams in Jorma's suit could be coming apart.
Yeah. That's the guy.
MSCHERE can go back to sleep now. LOL.
That sounds right too, MTS.
Why does that name ring a bell?
Ericy?
Sale.
You just gave me a headache.
Damn!
Yeah.
A bit cryptic, but I believe I said that.
The Ides of March.
The date,
by which the panel should transmit its decision to Paris,
for IDCC to respond to Jorma the Great's suit in Delaware.
Rimm up more than $5.00 on the news.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RIM confirms NTP settlement conference was held
Mon Mar 14, 2005 03:45 PM ET
TORONTO, March 14 (Reuters) - Research In Motion Ltd. (RIM.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) (RIMM.O: Quote, Profile,
Research) confirmed on Monday it held a settlement conference with NTP Inc. before a U.S. judge on Friday about their ongoing patent infringement battle.
"The settlement conference mediated by Judge Dohnal and publicized last week on the court's calendar took place. RIM has not issued any additional comment on the matter at this time. RIM will continue to publicly disclose material information as it becomes available," a RIM spokeswoman said in an e-mail.
L2V.
Another thing comes to mind.
If the SEC is checking companies at a 33% rate, sooner or later, the "chosen" companies have to be caught in their web.
I know they're a little behind in reviews, but if they checked 33% last year, and the year before, there would be a 100% chance this year.
Thank the Lord it's not the IRS. LOL.
O'Dog.
Yup.
They caught us.
Along with reviewing one third of issuers:
2. Issuers that experience significant volatility in their stock price as compared to other issuers;
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).
Hoboso.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that you and Loop are both correct on the basic issues.
After looking at Jim's post from the highly-secretive ICC, we no long have to guess that it's common for the parties to request an extension, which tends to support Loop's view.
After reading your post, "in the cases that I've tried, I've always known the result before the courtroom door ever went shut. If I thought that I'd won, I didn't have anything to offer and if I knew that I had lost, there was never anything being offered."
IMO, if this were not the case, there would be no need for an extension and, as has been said many times, the game would be over. Slam dunk for Nokia!
My bottom line: Even if they have the upper hand, the IDCC negotiators are not fools. Rather than looking for every opportunity to drive a stake in Nokia's heart, they will look for an opening to kiss and make up, without making it look like capitulation.
Both parties know how the endgame is played. Let's hope the extension gives them time to do so.
Enos.
I have to say this, or I won't sleep tonight:
Just once, I like to see Howard say the following:
Sorry folks, we could have had a better year and we muffed it.
I apologize to the shareholders who stood by us thru thick and thin, and lost $11.00 a share, compared to last March.
I also apologize to our analysts, many of whom have stuck their necks out on our behalf, only to see their projections go down the toilet.
But here's what we're going to do:
We're freezing salaries of all management personnel, until we get the results of the arbitration.
We're revising our bonus program, and suspending all bonuses until a new plan is devised.
The top 10 officers will take a 15% pay cut, which can only be recovered with a successful arbitration award.
We're revising the stock grant program, and will suspend all grants until they are appropriate.
When should he have said this?
In January 2004.
Bob.
During the first week in March 2004, we were trading at the $27.00 level.
Yet today, the stock grants and high compensation continue, and are forecast to increase again in the first quarter.
Things have sure changed since I carried a lunch bucket.
Hobe. I'm not questioning the procedure.
But I'll betcha a gallon of Grey Goose that the great majority of decisions are handed down within a couple of months of the "close".
That would be March 27th in this case.
Since neither one of us can be proven right, my bet is safe. LOL.
O'Dog.
When looking for reasons to justify an usual action, it often boils down to more than one.
1. This could be one of the largest Awards in recent ICC history, so they are moving slowly, with multiple reviews.
(We don't want no egg on our faces, man!).
2. The panel members have wireless experience, and probably know Jorma's reputation for taking no prisoners. (Filing the Delaware suit in the midst of the arb. should be proof positive).
3. But they also know their decision is crucial to IDCC, and would have little material effect on NOK.
If taking the slow road gives time for the parties to settle, everything noted above is meaningless, and they can heave a sigh of relief.
O'Dog.
Yes. But I think we've been led to believe that the ICC is there primarily for minor tweaking, without affecting the basic decision.
Now, Howard says "several panels" will review the decision, or words to that effect.
After much earlier discussion about providing time for settlement, does two months of panel reviews coincide with your expectations, or do you smell a Nokia rat as the reason for this seemingly super-cautious approach?
Howard says several panels in Paris will review the tribunal decision, to make sure it's on solid footing.
No doubt about it.
Even the ICC expects that NOK may challenge, if given an opening.
GAB.
It's in the arb. rules.
GAB.
Hasn't this been discussed before?
The loser could "challenge", but under limited circumstances.
If the loser doesn't pay, the winner may have to go to court to enforce the Award.
L2V.
Take a shot at this:
In the first ICC news, there was no date for submission of the draft Award by the tribunal.
Now, the tribunal will transmit its draft to Paris on or before March 15. But another two months could pass before it's announced.
What will the ICC and the tribunal do in the meantime?
But maybe more important, what will IDCC and NOK do?
QCOM has lots of clout, but so does NOK.
Judging from its "Mr. Tough Guy" approach to constructing contracts, and knowing their utter distaste for paying royalties to one patent holder, much less two, your NOK "vision" makes absolute sense.
Their first argument with QCOM would be, "Why should we pay you 5%, and then pay IDCC royalties as well?"
QCOM may have fixed that problem.
Poetic justice, times two. LOL.
Interesting thought, L2.
I've always been curious about the elusive indemnifier.
If your theory eventually holds water, could this also explain the delay in NOK's 20f filing, and the numbers contained therein?
That's the bottom line, Dish!
Loop.
Would you kindly explain how JAGfn can copyright a rumor?
Just kidding, Olde Pharte.
So far, I think they've published one NOK buyout, and two arb. settlements.
With earnings coming Thursday morning, they're taking it right to the finish line.
First prize, IMO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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).
Yeah. Found out when I tried to reply to Chartex.
Thanks.
Scusa, Chartex.
I just clicked on the mailbox and found several messages.
Apologies to all who I did not answer.
I don't think you can. I'm a freebee.
Try my email:
laranger@comcast.net