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:
A more truthful article might have said:
"These icons of South Korean industry have built a seemingly untouchable behemoth based on years of price-fixing, failing to pay royalties, and the like.
As such, they are virtually immune to puny lawsuits or fines of less that $1 billion.
The real question is, can they keep enough key executives out of jail so they can continue to run the company in a manner that reflects these long-held traditions."
IQ.
Thanks for the January 15th reminder.
So far, Nokia has been leading Sammy around by the nose on legal strategy. But it may be running out of time.
I'm encouraged by your response, and hope we may now be at that fork in the road, where arbitration over 2G is no longer the paramount issue.
As we know, Nokia claims QCOM comes up short with respect to WCDMA patents, and implies it can sign a license agreement under far more favorable terms.
If Nokia suddenly does a "180" and signs sucn an agreement with IDCC, Sammy may find that following the leader has done little but get it a very sore nose, and a much lighter wallet.
IQ.
Thanks.
And maybe someone should tell Nokia who the plaintiff is. LOL.
After that, someone should tell the judge what's going on.
There's no solid indication yet that he's doing anything but playing with his Blackberry.
SJR.
So, why aren't you laughing your a$$ off at Nokia's latest request which, in effect, demands that IDCC declare whether 184 patents are essential?
Another country heard from:
http://buttonwood1792.blogspot.com/
Revlis.
Precisely.
In a sense, aren't you (virtually) saying the same thing?
The only thing missing is the Markman.
So, if I'm getting you doods correctly, Nokia must provide proof:
1. That EACH and everyone of the 195 patents are NOT ESSENTIAL. (God knows how they do this).
2. Of the time, place, etc., where IDCC claimed they were essential. (Extremely difficult, since the patents were approved at different times, and verbal statements may not be confirmable).
3. That IDCC's actions damaged the largest cell phone manufacturer in the world, while its sales, profit, and market share kept growing.
If the above is true, Nokia's lawyers will surely object to the 30 day response time, or the broad scope of the court's order.
Rox.
The link won't work.
Now you're talkin', O'Dog.
That'll keep Nokia's boys burning the midnight oil.
Thanks.
I thought there were only 18 named by Nokia.
I suppose Nokia's answer will only apply to the patents it originally identified in the lawsuit.
But what happens to all the others that it didn't?
Spencer.
Is the woman Janet Point, or Nancy Pelosi?
The following will give you some idea of what we're dealing with when it comes to South Korean giant Samsung:
Samsung Group
Samsung Electronics | Samsung Electric | Samsung SDI | Samsung Corning | Samsung SDS | Samsung Networks | Samsung Corning Precision Glass | Samsung Techwin | Samsung Heavy Industries | Samsung Engineering | Samsung Total | Samsung Petrochemicals | Samsung Precision Chemicals | Samsung BP Chemicals | Samsung Life | Samsung Fire | Samsung Card | Samsung Securities | Samsung Investment Trust Management | Samsung Venture Investment | Samsung Corporation | Samsung Plaza | Samsung Constructions | Suwon Samsung Bluewings | Everland | Samsung Lions | Samsung Khan | Hotel Silla | Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology | Samsung Economic Research Institute | Cheil Communications | S1 Corp. | Renault Samsung Motors | Samsung Cheil Apparel | Samsung Medical Center | Samsung Manpower Association | Samsung Culture Association | Samsung Welfare Association | Samsung Media Association | Samsung Hoam Association
Mosaid sued Samsung in September 2001 for patent infringement.
Samsung finally gave up in 2005, (after being sanctioned by the court), and signed a patent license agreement with Mosaid:
http://www.mosaid.com/corporate/investor-relations/litigation-samsung.php
Mosaid is fairly active in using the courts to enforce its patent rights, and even locked horns with Infineon and Micron Technology.
Bulldozer.
That's the one thing I liked about the CC:
"In the New York case we have already indicated to the court that some Samsung’s more egregious positions may be sanctiona(ble)(sic)."
I'm sure Merritt realizes that Nokia and Samsung are leading the parade, trying to stamp-out royalties for the good of humanity. And, if tough action isn't taken, this could go on indefinately.
When he says "we have already indicated to the court", I take it that IDCC has already filed motions for sanctions.
And when he says "more egregious positions", it's apparent that Samsung has served-up more than one legal tidbit for IDCC's lawyers to chew on.
Mschere's post about Samsung's sanction in Canada, when added to their price-fixing conviction in the U.S., and the related conviction of certain Samsungs executives, tells me there's light at the end of the tunnel.
Too bad the analysts didn't pursue the sanction comments more thoroughly.
UBSS has a mere 200 shares for sale, at 35.88.
Signed a new cell contract yesterday at the local Sprint retail store.
They were sold out of LG's, but had plenty of Nokia's, which they branded as "no good".
VG.
Don't kid yourself.
This is not a sale by some mid-level officer.
And it's not for 10,000 shares.
AH bid dropped to 32.50, after a sale at 35.03 at 4:49.
Jim.
Re: O'Dog.
I'm sure glad he's on our side! ! ! !
"Tomorrow hopefully will be a non-event."
If Merritt doesn't pull a rabbit out of his hat, we both know better than that.
Didn't Jimlur predict this a few days ago?
Hey Gabby. The filing came out at 4:41 PM.
Tomorrow you won't feel the same.
DD.
I'm not a "big time" member.
I got your message, but can't reply.
Thanks.
In fact, he sold 10,000, optioned in 2000. Still owns 90,000.
Maybe this is the problem:
"(A) a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken under this rule or Rule 31 by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or by third-party defendants;"
As I recall, the allegations were so broad, IDCC wanted to depose just about everyone.
O'Dog.
This is almost laughable.
Nokia makes a slew of claims against IDCC concerning things they allegedly said or did in public.
Then, they don't want to talk about the details.
So, will the judge have to decide the issue?
Ams.
I think you're a little confused as to who is the pissee, and who is the pissor.
Corp.
Do you ever shut up?
Now that Sammy has been decided, the unlicensed 3G slackers are starting to pile up and stink up the place.
Is it time for a gang bang?
Would Merritt be foolish to file a complaint with the FTC (one year decision) against Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Ericy, and Sony/Ericcson?
Or would he be more foolish to let sleeping dogs lie?
If nothing else, joining QCOM in their FTC action against Nokia is not something that Pekka The Tax Dodger would be fond of.
Loop.
I agree.
The more cash a company has on hand, the more guidance is distorted (if not misstated), enabling them to automatically beat the street.
Faganized again.
Ricardo.
Sorry to hear about the driver's test.
Keep at 'em, and don't give up.
There are drivers out there today who are 100 years old.
O'Dog.
Thanks for flushing out the latest poop on the boys from Espoo.
IMO, things are getting a little complicated for Nokia, which is why they put the date in the agreement regarding future lawsuits by IDCC.
Consider the following:
1. QCOM is suing Nokia in San Diego.
2. QCOM is suing Nokia in the U.K.
3. Nokia's agreement with QCOM expires in April 2007.
4. QCOM started an action against Nokia with the FTC.
5. Nokia is suing IDCC in Delaware.
6. Nokia is suing IDCC in the U.K.
Unless Nokia has some assurance that IDCC will not sue for a period of time, Merritt could throw an ugly turd in Nokia's punchbowl.
My guess is, that date is sometime in early 2007.
BA is 27.80--29.50. No trades.
Revlis.
At first, I was very suspicious about the "no comment" answer.
But Janet has now gone on record that they have heard nothing.
Too bad. I thought we had her with a slip of the tongue.
I don't disagree with your following comment:
"So technically Janet is correct to say they are "awaiting a ruling" even if IDCC is currently negotiating with Samsung."
I don't disagree.
It's apparent that they have not received a ruling.
But there's no reason to believe they're negotiating a settlement, unless you know something we don't.
Revlis.
Here's the quote from the CC.
<Q – Frank Marcella>: Got you. And then, just a last question. I joined a minute or 2 late – I was on another call. Did you guys update on Samsung at all? Or say anything about Samsung? And if you did, if you could repeat it, I'd appreciate it.
<A – Janet Point>: Hi, Frank, it's Janet. No, we pretty much said the same thing we said before, which is the evidentiary hearing is completed in January. Post hearing briefs have been submitted, and we're awaiting a ruling.
<Q – Frank Marcella>: Okay, all right. Any sense of – it seems to be taking a little longer. Any sense as to why?
<A>: No. It's taking place, sort of, within the general timeframe that I have seen these things go before, so we haven't really sensed this thing has taken longer than it should.
Once the ICC makes its decision and communicates it to the parties, IDCC must make the decision public.
If the parties are negotiating at the time, or shortly thereafter, this does not have to be revealed by IDCC.
That's my understanding from Janet.