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.
JK.
Why do you think the NC court is so silent?
Hell.
I'm still trying to figure out what a dongle is.
"A turbo code encoder with an interleaver having two recursive systematic constituent code (RSC) encoders. The encoder encodes a finite sequence of informative bits without requiring a plurality of tail bits to flush the registers of each encoder to an all-zero state. The interleaver reduces the turbo code overhead by using only a single tail bit sequence. The interleaver also selectively reorders integers in accordance with a predefined set of rules."
Gamco. The wording in many patents is mind boggling!
Even with weeks of coaching by a wireless engineer, I can't imagine how a lawyer can defend or try to invalidate such a patent in court.
Loop.
You said nothing more and nothing less than what the rest of us believe.
If you think you made a mistake, so what?
I believe I speak for many when I say, we don't think so.
It's not like to you to do this, and the board would not be the same without you.
Besides, if you go, who will water the plants?
MSCHERE.
All I know is, most of the recent fuss involving Nokia, including the closing of the Arb. hearing, the Delaware filing, and the May 31 award date, happened at or after they reported their year end earnings on January 27.
We should also keep in mind that the figures are as 12/31.
The F20 could be totally different, due to 'subsequent events', right?
O'Dog.
Good catch, again.
His credentials appear to be heavily defense oriented, which is not what I expected to see.
It's probably totally unfair, but I had to chuckle a bit when I read about his work for Thailand, Zambia, and Trinidad/Tobago.
Damn, O'Dog.
At first, I thought you were going to tell the joke about Lorena's sister.
One of our Yahoo posters is Oilfield, who works for one of the big oil companies in Anchorage.
I'll have to call him. LOL.
Or consulted with Lorena Bobbitt.
Loop.
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
It's on my list too.
I believe it was reported here that there was no delay for the last two years.
On February 18, I emailed Nokia concerning availability of a duo mode phone in the U.S.
I finally got my reply today:
"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.
Thank you for choosing Nokia for your mobile needs.
Carlo
E-mail Specialist
Nokia Inc.
At the moment, I see no reason to get upset about earnings.
We're quite sure the revenues are there.
If legal expenses ruin the day, they're explainable.
I'd much rather have higher legal expense, than lower revenues.
Good point, O'Dog.
But they knew the rules in the UK, when it started in June.
They could have provided for a loss in the June or September quarters, or part in each quarter.
Bob.
One thought.
I think some may be underestimating the driving force at Nokia.
Each time Nokia does something unusual, we should look to their mantra, which is "Kill the Patent Holders!"
Jorma's utter disgust for royalties has gotten lots of press, and it's been the subject of many posts. But today, it's bordering on the irrational.
With $15 billion in the bank, he cares little that he's spending millions on attorneys in a relentless attempt to steam-roller everything in his path. Because, once licensed, it's an expense that can seldom be cut.
I'm trying to keep that in mind as we watch his high-wire antics, on the way to the finish line.
Loop.
So, I finally wore you out, eh?
Well, your final message on the subject was very interesting.
Then again, the Final Hearings went on for days.
Right on, Jim.
It's always been about people.
And it always will be.
Good night all.
Loop.
I leave you with this thought tonight, which runs counter to the theory that the parties asked for time to settle:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"The Company anticipates a decision by the ICC
ON OR BEFORE that date,
absent an EARLIER resolution by the parties."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the parties ask for a delay, shouldn't they have said,
"The Company anticipates a decision ON THAT DATE,
absent an earlier resolution by the parties."
What's the deal, Cliff?
Phil sitting it out?
I thought there some kinda prize for the west coast
"swing". About $500,000.
Let's be careful out there, fella.
Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes. We don't need to spend any more money cleaning your muddy basement.
Jim. Thanks.
Beats me how the Dog digs up these bones.
Red.
A new moniker.
"John D." Olilla. LOL.
OK.
I get it.
So, when can I take my bar exam?
I'm now going to the couch with cheese and crackers, and watch Phil thrill the crowd.
Boy, this is getting tougher by the minute!
OK, so the Ericy boys are on notice.
What does that have to do with the manner in which a 3G infringment dispute is settled? i.e., arbitration vs. lawsuit.
I object, yer honer!
A while back, everyone was kicking Howard's a$$ for not requiring arbitration for 3G disputes in their 1999 agreement.
Now, the Ericy and SNE agreements of 2001 have nearly the same language, and you're not surprised.
Please answer soon. I'm getting a headache.
"Yep", indeed.
So how do ya'll guys arrive at that conclusion?
I think it's pretty clear on its face.
Neither party will be forced into arbitration when it comes to alleged infringment of 3G.
Although aribtration is generally considered the shortest line between two points, could this have something to do with "cease and desist", which can only be ordered by a court?
Yeah. I noticed that too.
"I am not sure whether that is referring to the hearing stage only, or the entire arbitration process."
But it would seem that, not having heard all the evidence, they wouldn't know how complicated the case was, which would affect the time needed to make a decision.
Then again, they normally get things completed in 6 months, and leave an "out" for the complicated ones.
Sounds right to me.
But I don't know whether arbitrators are asked to determine the validity of patents, or whether that's usually reserved for the courts?
Further, amigo, if you were able to find Ericy/SNE, can you also find the NOK of 1999?
O'Dog.
I wonder what this means? It's in the agreements with both Ericy and SNE.
Also, could this same language be in the NOK agrement, which would explain the Delaware action?
The confusing language is as follows:
"neither party shall be compelled to submit to.......... arbitration.....any dispute......relating to Licensee's alleged infringement of ITC's Third Generation patents."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ARTICLE VI
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
6.1. Agreement to Dispute Resolution Procedures. Any Dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures specified in this Article VI, which shall be the sole and exclusive procedures for the resolution of any such Disputes.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, except as the parties may agree in writing, neither party shall be compelled to submit to negotiation, mediation or arbitration under this Article VI any dispute or other matter relating to Licensee's alleged infringement of ITC's Third Generation patents.
Bob.
Getting back to the Arb. for the moment, here are the ICC rules, in short:
After having consulted the parties, TheTribunal shall establish a provisional timetable that it intends to follow for the conduct of the arbitration.
When the parties have presented their cases, the Tribunal shall declare the proceedings closed.
TheTribunal shall (then) indicate to the Secretariat an approximate date by which the draft Award will be submitted to the Court.
Any postponement of that date shall be communicated to the Secretariat by the Tribunal.
The Court may extend this time limit pursuant to a request from the Tribunal, or on its own initiative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After paying some pretty hefty ICC fees, and spending tons of money for 6 months arguing their points, one would think that the ICC would have a rule for announcing the "final date" to the parties.
But nowhere does it state that the ICC or the Tribunal will do so.
This seems odd, because the ICC is not there to blindside either party with an untimely decision. And it's not there to keep lawyers and executives on the edge of the seats for several months.
The only rules that seem to make sense to this unbiased reader, are the last two paragraphs above.
This is just between you and me, Bob. And maybe I've answered my own question. This post will probably self-destruct in 10 minutes, because it means absolutely nothing.
A criminal thought:
IDCC's predicament is not unlike cases that play-out every day around the world:
a. In this instance, inventions worth hundreds of millions have been stolen, and there are no less than five suspects.
b. But, after considerable questioning, none seem inclined to "crack".
c. The suspects all have past rap sheets, and are called Ericcson, Samsung, Lucent, Sony-Ericsson, and a hard-core royalty killer, known only as The Snake.
d. The prosecutor knows, if he can sign one suspect to a plea bargain, the walls could come tumbling down.
e. The trick is to pick the right suspect, and not be under the wall at the wrong time.
I am no fan of management, but I don't envy them their position.
Like lion tamers, they have to deal with one dangerous animal at a time, while keeping their eyes on the other four, or they will not come out alive.
If Howard knows what is said on this board, he must be thinking. . . . . . "Easy for you to say, boyz!"
Good point, about the enormity of the arbitration, which could come under the heading of "Politics".
But after reading Loop's analysis, and re-reading the SEC filing, I'm solidly in Loop's camp.
Why?
Why would the ICC get involved, unless someone asked them to depart from their normal rules?
Any suggestion that the panel asked for the delay on its own, doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.
Why doesn't it past this test?
If the trigger wasn't pulled, there would be no need to waste 3 1/2 months to announce the decision.
If the trigger was pulled, it would be highly unusual for the panel to PREDICT that it wouldn't have an answer for a SURPRISING 3 1/2 months. (i.e., maybe a 30 day delay, but not 105 days).
Opinions abound. You may well be right, and I thank you.
Loop.
Once again, the air becomes a little clearer for the peons.
To put it in layman's terms, I believe you're saying that, ordinarily:
1. The panel makes its decision,
2. Transmits it to the ICC for final review.
3. Notifies the parties of the award.
In this case, it appears that:
1. BOTH PARTIES REQUESTED A DELAY from the panel, presumably for settlement purposes.
2. The panel requested approval from the ICC.
3. The ICC said "OK, but you can only delay until May 31."
If they settle, the party's over.
If they don't, an award will be made on May 31, unless the parties reach an impasse beforehand, and so notify the panel.
As usual, you've been very patient, Loop. Much appreciated.
Loop.
The last sentence of my post:
"Does anyone know for a fact that, after final arguments have been filed, the combatants have requested a delay in a panel's decision, and such request was granted?"
I've called the ICC to get an answer to this question, without success.
Although a "Yes" would not mean they did so in our case, it would add another level of confidence to an IDCC award, and also to your belief that an extension was granted.
Bob.
Three days ago, the NHL said the 2004/2005 season was down the tubes.
But you've probably heard that they went back to the bargaining table today. (In NY, by the way. Near the ICC? LOL).
Wanna bet that Mr. Tough Guy was only playing the game?
Judging by the price action, the message boards seem to be the only ones who believe the arbitration will result in a decision for IDCC, based in part on the May 31st date.
Wall Street seems to keep snickering and saying, "May 31 be damned! Our money is still on the Big Dog from Finland. So either bug-off, or show us the money!"
But we're sure of one thing:
There is no ICC rule that says, "After making your decision, be sure to prolong the agony for the loser."
Put another way, "If the trigger was not pulled, be sure to allow several months for final negotiations, even though IDCC has absolutely no leg to stand on."
Some "political" thoughts also come to mind:
If the parties are given time. . . and settle. . . no arbitration decision will be needed. But the panel will still have served its purpose.
With no decision, there would be no challenge by the high-flying, gun-slinging lawyers at Nokia, which the panel would probably like to avoid.
This would also avoid any impression that the world's largest cell phone manufacturer came to the U.S., and was knocked over by a pipsqueak wannabee from Pennsylvania, because the hearings were biased in favor of a domestic company.
Just one more comment:
At the moment, we can only guess about the mysterious May 31 date, because the panel could supposedly rule at any time.
Does anyone know for a fact that, after final arguments have been filed, the combatants have requested a delay in a panel's decision, and such request was granted?
Just checked with Waterhouse.
2,500 did trade at .74, but they believe it's a keystroke error.
The current bid ask is still in the normal basement.
Loop.
You said, "It appears that the briefs have been filed and that the parties asked for additional time in which to negotiate."
Have you ever heard of this happening before, with the ICC?
Do I look worried?