DR.

That's a revolting development!

Did you come to any conclusion about whether, in your opinion, NOK's suit is "cherry picking" in nature, as opposed to attacking everything in IDCC's 3G portfolio?

This one needs re-posting, as well.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: texb

In reply to: None Date:3/6/2005 1:48:42 PM

Post #of 97100

NOK's 3G Delaware lawsuit is ONLY about NARROWBAND CDMA

This morning I downloaded all of IDCC's (ITC's) IPR declarations to ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). I sent the 3,480-line declarations file as an Excel spreadsheet to JimLur for posting.

The ETSI declarations are made by project (technology type) such as UMTS, UMTS/CDMA or GSM. Eleven of the patents in the NOK Delaware lawsuit were declared only under project UMTS/CDMA (as opposed to WCDMA patents that were declared as UMTS).

Three of the NOK-disputed patents were declared as UMTS, but the patent descriptions contained either 'spread spectrum' or 'CDMA system' and would also apply to narrowband CDMA. Another three of the patents were declared as GSM (!) but apply to TDMA/CDMA combo systems and thus also to narrowband CDMA. One last patent was not even declared to ETSI, but again appears partly applicable to a narrowband CDMA system.

Bottom line...

IMO NOK is NOT challenging IDCC's WCDMA, TDD or TD-WCDMA patents in the Delaware lawsuit. It's all about NOK's future plans to enter the narrowband CDMA market in competition with Qualcomm. NOK does not want to have to pay narrowband CDMA royalties in excess of those it begrudgingly agreed to pay QCOM.

texb

Dave, my thought also.

If you don't mind, I'll post the full message:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by: texb

In reply to: mschere who wrote msg# 97026

Date:3/6/2005 4:02:28 PM
Post #of 97095

Mschere, I believe the question is now answered...

the only thing the 18 NOK Delaware patents have in common is their applicability to narrowband CDMA.

If NOK intended that lawsuit as a general challenge to all of IDCC's 3G patents, they fell way short of the mark and will no doubt be called out for outrageous cherry picking.

ITC's ETSI declarations of U.S. patents for UMTS include 73 for issued patents and another 130 for patents under application. In addition, another 53 patents were declared as of April 2004 for UMTS/CDMA (applicable also to narrowband).

MO and belief.

texb

Eneerg.

Didn't NOK drop from 11th last year, to 61st?

Helluva drop!

Jeffrey.

You said, of the Ericy settlement, "I found that disconcerting, as the settlement that was announced soon thereafter was for a fraction of a penny on the dollar, and excluded any resolution of 3G licensure issues."

We all agree. But shouldn't we keep in mind that Ericy and SNE are still out in front of NOK?

They are currently paying royalties for 2G and, as such, are at a disadvantage to NOK when it comes to cost of sales.

Like everyone else, the Ericy crew seems to have NOK's "number". So why would they add to that cost by signing for 3G, until they see the results of NOK's latest legal moves?

Unless I miss my guess, you would have done the same.

O'Dog.

A day late, but I agree.

I would expect Jorma's lawyers could count to 16. LOL.

Damn.

Foiled again!

But thanks for the clarification.

Hell, I won't even ask what happened to claims 9 and 16. LOL.

O'Dog.

I should have not indicated that NOK left several claims up in the air.

However, paragraphs 76 and 77 contain language that all claims may not be disputed in the '792 patent.

Their language: "Nokia is entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity with respect to AT LEAST (my caps) claims 2,7,8, and 13-15 of the "792 patent."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I'm not understanding the complete meaning of the '792 language.

Hoboso.

Seems to me that NOK has a huge, unfinished job on its hands, which casts further doubt on its true intentions in Delaware.

It mentions 18 patents, but goes into little detail when it comes to the hundreds of claims within those patents.

In parts of its suit, NOK cites several claim numbers, but then says "at least" some of those claims should be declared invalid or not infringed, leaving the remainder open to question.

Did Jorma decide to give Howard a quick shot across the bow to see whether he'll swerve, before adding significantly to the details of his suit?

The second round, if one comes, could be a lot more expensive for both parties.

Ed.

NOK is the biggest dog in the pound. But it's not acting like it.

They paid IDCC $59 million for 3g development, and signed a 6 year agreement for 3G. But they want the court to believe they received absolutely no benefit from this investment, and have never infringed, or used a valid IDCC 3G patent.

Despite what NOK says, IDCC does not have a history of suing for infringement. And the court should not be impressed with NOK's statement that Forbes Magazine "told us so".

Only two come to mind in the past 15 years, with one being MOT, and the other LU, which resulted from an acquisition.

Given this background, does it make sense for the big dog to suddenly strike out (at the eleventh hour, and in the midst of an arbitration battle) with its own lawsuits, based on the fear that IDCC will sue, and for NO OTHER REASON?

If you truly believe you haven't infringed some patents, and you truly believe the remaining ones are invalid, don't you usually point to your balance sheet with $15 billion in cash, and wait for the little dog to start the fight?

I don't know.

He's only 54.

I agree that the price would have to be reasonable, like about $50-$55 a share.

But look would NOK would get IN 5 YEARS on a $3 billion investment:

1. Avoidance of paying a one-time payment of perhaps $500 million for 2G, including interest, etc.

2. 2G payments in the future would be a wash.

3. Avoidance of paying about $500 million-plus for 3G.

4. Reversing a litigation reserve of about $400 million.

5. More big bucks from Samsung.

6. No more pussy-footing around by the likes of Ericy, LU, Siemens, Motorola, and many others.

And don't forget the fat margins. NOK needs them, as
private brands emerge, the cell phone war continues to heat up, and the price of phones is predicted to drop dramatically.


You can bet on one thing. NOK's finance staff has run the numbers, and they probably update them each quarter. And they get larger as each month passes.

Moreover, what better way to kill the patent holder than to buy them?

I don't understand, Loop.

Although not your garden variety "settlement", I've known of cases where litigation has resulted in a merger/takeover.

(Don't ask me to name one.).

MTS.

I wouldn't think so.

Although the amount could be very large, he'd merely be paying what he owed, and should have provided an adequate reserve.

I wouldn't disagree about a NOK stake, L2V.

Although Jorma currently wants to kill all the patent holders, NOK, with its huge cash surplus, has always had a formal program for investing in small companies.

But, whatever happened to the thought that NOK would benefit the most (financially) from a complete takeover?

If Jorma is "forced" to settle because his legal wrangling is but a bluff, seems to me he's just the kind of gunslinger to go the whole route, and throw our boys on the street.

I wouldn't sign for 3G until NOK signed for 3G.

Not even Ericy would convince me to sign, because of the Delaware suit.

Only 36 days have passed since the Arb. closed its doors.

It would take at least 30 days for executives in Espoo just to drag Jorma to the bargaining table.

JK.

Let me take the other view:

How long would it take to draft, complete, get final approval from headquarters, and file certain agreements with the court, for the following?

Arbitration.

Delaware lawsuit.

UK lawsuit.

3G agreement.

Yup.

I should have qualified my answer.

This is the Washington court's record, with a 33% reversal rate.

BTW, are you saying they apparently thought the issue of Judge Lynn's decision should be decided?

Hoboso.

The Supreme's reversal rate is about 1.6% of all cases submitted on appeal.

Making the "finals" is a huge step

"Ability to work in a loosely structured environment,"

One day?

I'd call that loose!

I guess Rip is too busy to continue managing this function.

Thanks, Loop.

Seems IDCC's "answer" would look very weak if it didn't at least counter for infringement. A little fruad would be great.

Further, Nokia's stated intentions for the U.S. market seem a little far fetched to be believeable, at the moment.

As said before,

First, is Jorma so obsessed with killing patent holders that he would sacrifice the largest market in the world for two years? His people in the NY office certainly hope not.

Second, would he have to re-design phones for the rest of the world, so that they would also not infringe? Talk about pi$$ed-off engineers!

Third, if he intends to design around IDCC's patents in the U.S., does that not indicate he may already be infringing, else why would he try to invalidate?

Fourth, if he can invalidate, there would be no need to design around them. (An indication that he's not too sure of victory?).

Finally, the following is a repeat of Nokia's response, when I asked them for retail outlets in the U.S. that sold duo mode 3G phones:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Thank you for e-mailing Nokia's Contact Center.

We appreciate your inquiry concerning 3G technology.

The Third Generation Wireless Systems (3G) efforts are being guided by the ITU. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) goal is that 3G standards will be completed by the year 2000 and the first commercial systems could begin service as soon as the year 2001 or 2002.

"Currently, we do not have a 3G phone available in the U.S. market; however, if you are interested, look into the Nokia 6680 phone that is due for the U.S. market soon."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think I just gave myself a headache!

Ghors.

Assuming we get to March 15 without a settlement, does IDCC really have a choice, other than to generally deny all of NOK's allegations, and file a couterclaim for infringement?

Put another way, in your experience, what is the approximate percentage of responses that result in denial only, with no counter claim?

Corp.

What? No comment about being called a slippery eel?

If you say 10 things in a post, you're lucky if one is correct.

IDCC may lose on appeal. And it may lose the arbitration. But it won't lose based on your legal observations.

You wouldn't last five minutes in small claims court in my town.

You can't be serious, Alalud.

Corp makes statements like, "rather than effecting settlements REGARDLESS of the court's actions as was done in the IDCC/E settlement and vacatur",

and was proven wrong.

To compound the error, he says, "Surely, F&J won't make this mistake again for their other clients."

Don't you just love it?

These incorrect statements lead to, "This is why I am so LIVID about this monumental and perhaps NEGLIGENT mistake...."

Then, he caps it off with, "many of these EXTREME risks....are the direct result of NEEDLESS, FOOLISH, REPEATED, perhaps NEGLIGENT, mistakes by our management and their hired guns."

And that's where you come in with the malpractice comment, wondering whether the statute has run,

ALL BASED ON INCORRECT STATEMENTS BY CORP!

Loop.

You won't agree, but I believe Judge Lynn was overly affected by Nokia's prowess, and their obvious stash of cash (read platoons of lawyers) which, at latest count, was $15 billion.

Not wanting to tangle with Nokia's big boys, I believe she took the easy way out, knowing that appeals are rarely successful.

"Hot" is the right word. And the hotter you get, the madder I get. LOL.

You are one slippery eel, Corp.

First you said, "Unfortunately, IDCC and E, in effecting the settlement, did not make the court's action part of the settlement, since they only REQUESTED the vacatur post settlement. Accordingly, it seems IDCC and F&J took the wrong approach... told the court and the world that the settlement is indifferent to the vacatur....."

After Loop gave you the proper sequence of the dates, which totally contradicted yours, you said:

.."if the settlement and licenses were truly effected in fact AFTER the PSJ vacatur was effected, then this would seem to be a very significant and compelling point..."

Then, without knowing IDCC's arguments in their appeal, you said:

"....I just don't understand why IDCC did not apparently argue this sequence and that the vacatur was indeed an intergral part of the settlement in a compelling way (if at all) in their briefs (as I recall).

In any case, I have contacted the clerk at the Fed Cir Court of Appeal to request their process and requirements to obtain a copy of all the briefs in the Appeal, so maybe we can get some new info on the facts and IDCC's arguments from those briefs."

Don't quit your day job, Corp.

You have said the same thing in the last 15 posts.

BORING!

Keep it up, guys!

You are slowly unraveling the reasons for the actions of IDCC and Ericy.

Let's hope the clerks at the court of appeals are doing the same.

The score is now:

Oso, one.

Ghors, one.

Loop, one.

Corp Buyer is up-to-bat.

A gold star for you, Ghors!

Loop/L2V.

Thank you both.

Regardless of the question, it all seems to get back to the same answer:

The panel's actions will be the deciding factor.

Makes you wonder if they have any idea how critical their decision is for IDCC.

Loop.

You may have retired your computer for the night, but I'd like a little clarification tomorrow, if not this evening:

Do you think the appeals court will learn about Judge Lynn's question concerning Nokia's late intervention, when she said, "Where have you been for 10 years?"

and Nokia's response, that they didn't intervene sooner because "We didn't think IDCC would win"?

Quite clearly, Nokia spoke the truth.

But now, they site reams of law, backing-up their contention that their rights have been violated, and they want to exhume the body, because IDCC lied about the effect of PSJ's on third parties.

If the court learns about these "truthful" comments, do you believe it will take them into consideration in making its ruling?

And why do I already know the answer?

Art.

Normally, Jorma is fighting the little guy, shoving them from one corner to the next, stopping only to get more tar and feathers, as the hapless inventor falls to the ground.

Although he may win again, there is no little guy in NY, and the scales are balanced for the first time in his petty little life.

No amount of money, and no platoon of lawyers will sway the panel.

It's been 33 days since the Arb. closed its doors, and it may go the full route.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Although logic has eluded us at virtually every turn, we would all be speechless if the panel made the parties wait 3 months, just to get a "No Trigger" decision.

With earnings coming March 10, and IDCC's Delaware response on March 15, I doubt we'll hear anything from NY until after those dates have passed.

Sinnet.

L2V is correct.

All your "ifs" will go by the wayside if the Arb. rules in IDCC's favor, because it will change everything.

Nokis can sue all they want in the UK and in Delaware, but an award to IDCC will expose Ollila for the sham artist that he is, and has been.

For the moment, we should keep our eye on the bouncing ball, until it comes to rest.

Thanks, Whizz.

The judge must have gone on vacation.

JK.

I just wanted to chalk up another loss to Nokia, which would make three out of five.

Obviously, the remaining two are the only ones which matter.

But it's the little things that count. LOL.

Loop.

I just re-read your post for the third time and, as usual,
you are always careful to end your posts with "MO".

Are you now stating that you are no longer entitled to an opinion?

Are you saying that you live in a free country, but are not free to speak the truth, as you see it?

Well, I have an opinion similar to yours and, of course, it's simply an expression of how I feel, without any coaching from you, amigo:

Jorman Ollila is a lowdown, beady-eyed polecat, who has little purpose in life, whether business or personal.

Proof of his cowardice is that he is quick to take advantage of little people, but never takes on the big boys.

Whether now or sometime in the future, he will eventually get what's coming to him.

But your withdrawal from this board will not hasten that day.

I'm confident that, in the end, you will not desert us.

Loop.

Yahoo is on the fritz, but Llobo Blanco asked me to forward the following message:

"I guess the Yahoo gods are not looking favorably on me
today so I am unable to post;

I would, however appreciate it someone would be kind enough to relay to Loop that there are a great number of people who,
although they do not post regularly, read and appreciate his opinions.

A great deal would be lost, a respected point of view would be missed and a valued perspective gone, if Loop were to stop posting.

A lot of us would appreciate his continued presence.

L. Wolfe

__________________________________________________