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.
O'Dog.
Pay not attention.
The $18.16 was me.
Just rounding out my shares.
Just to be onery, I'll use my last post to predict a settlement.
Jorma may be a no good, lousy polecat. But he won't totally embarrass his company and its more than 50,000 employees with a broadside.
"Kiss and Make up" is the name of the next chapter.
Moreover, IMO, Howard and Hairy know better than to repeat their last mistake.
If I'm wrong Oso, sue me for something.
The "word" apparently hasn't hit the wires yet.
Only 1900 shares in AHT at $17.51, as of 8 PM.
The Witches may get their brooms handed to them tomorrow.
And they'll have plenty of time to think it over, with a three day weekend.
IQ/Loop.
OK, I give up.
"No wiggle room" is now written on my bathroom mirror, so I can see it when I wake up in the morning.
I was just trying to make the point that Ericy and SNE were STILL major competitors, even if they were no longer one company.
One never knows when Nokia will suddenly change direction, and start beating a different drum.
Loop.
Scuse me while I beat the "Trigger" thing one more time. (Germans hard-heads are always the toughest to convince. LOL):
Recent language about signing a "Major competitor" is more than a little comforting.
Despite the merger with Sony, Ericy's handset division was one of the biggest in the business, and "had to be" a major competitor of NOK's, IMO.
Ericy's infrastructure operation, was the largest in the world in 1999, and should unquestionably qualify as a major competitor.
Each signed an agreement for 2G.
Do you see it that way?
Ronnie.
Have you been keeping track of what NOK and SAM might owe, if IDCC received an award from 2002 thru May 31, 2005 for 2G?
Very funny MSCHERE.
What does Daniel Webster say about "Award"?
1. The decision of arbitrators in a case submitted to them.
2. The document containing the decision of the arbitrators.
3. Something that is conferred or bestowed on the basis of merit or need.
DD. No one wants to claim victory yet. But it doesn't sound like it would take 3 1/2 more months to decide that the trigger wasn't pulled.
Isn't the award made after the big boyz review it?
Under the heading, "I wish I'd said that!"
"You are not building any credibility by criticizing the coach and players before the game is over."
That makes two today, Loop, you olde pharte.
Loop recalls seeing it in an SEC filing, (Could be the 20F).
But I must admit, your reference:
"After failed attempts at negotiating a settlement, Nokia filed an arbitration demand"
is language that is very close to the mark.
And it smacks of Jorma's beady-eyed, "We're the Big Dog, and you better believe it, or else!" attitude.
If I can paraphrase, "We made attempts (Stop here, and notice the plural). . . . to settle with these QCOM wannabees, and they wouldn't fall for our two-bit offer.
So, in accordance with our long-standing policy, we're making their lives miserable.
Damn the consequences! Lawyers! Full speed ahead!"
As usual, Sir Dog, thanks so much for your trouble.
Better review the bidding, Corp.
You said IDCC management has a "bias for litigation".
If you listed the lawsuits filed by IDCC in the past 10 years, you would only need one finger; for Lucent.
If you listed Nokia's, you would need both hands.
Ghors.
I fully understand your point.
I was talking about NOK's apparent claim that Ericy was "no longer Ericy", after their handset division was merged with Sony's.
Clearly, 100% of Ericy's phone operation was still in existence, and 100% of its infrastructure operation was likewise.
Therefore, since the intent was to trigger royalties if Ericy signed for 2G, NOK could not now claim otherwise.
This is far from loopey:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nokia would have known that that "no trigger" would basically destroy IDCC and there would be no further need to "sue".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One of Loop's best observations, IMO.
Glenny.
We've all been there.
Trying to be courageous in wording a contract;
Objecting to everything that is suspicious, or that could be detrimental.
But, when you're not the big dog, it's like downloading a program on the web. If you don't "Accept", you don't download.
O'Dog.
Can you help?
TIA.
Loop.
You said, "Even Nok has stated that they made offers of settlement in their SEC filings that were rejected by IDCC."
Do you recall the filing date? I must have missed that one.
Does your partner believe "Signing a contract in good faith", and interpreting "What the parties intended", will affect the panel's decision?
I hope they're not just deciding on the legal wording in the contract.
Good evening, caballeros.
I tried to post this on Yahoo, but it was too long.
I composed this little crib sheet because I had a hard time explaining the NOK/IDCC history, and latest developments to my wife.
Hope you don't mind. I can now transfer it by link.
It's called, "Nokia's Viewpoint":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We, Nokia, owe nothing to IDCC for anything:
a. Yes, we used IDCC patents for 2G and 2.5G for several years, without paying royalties. However, in 1999, we paid them about $40 million for past infringment.
b. By agreement, we have paid nothing since December 2001, since royalties thereafter were predicated on IDCC signing a "named" manufacturer to a 2G license. This has come to be known as the 2G "Trigger".
c. Much to the surprise of our lawyers, Ericy signed such a license in 2003, after an 11 year Texas shootout with IDCC. Yes, Ericy was named as one of the "trigger" manufacturers in our agreement. However, prior to signing their license, Ericy merged its handset division with Sony's, and a new 50/50 joint venture was formed. Therefore, Ericy may be a trigger for base station royalties, but Sony/Ericy does not qualify as a trigger for 2G phones, which is our primary source of revenue. Ergo, we are free to use these patents until a valid trigger is activated, or until the current arbitration panel decides otherwise.
d. If the panel decides against us, we will challenge its ruling, whether or not we have a sound basis. If you believe otherwise, you have only to review four other legal actions filed by Nokia, which directly or indirectly involve IDCC.
e. One action aims to invalidate certain 2G patents in the UK. Another involves the production of Ericy documents in connection with the arbitration hearing. Two others involve Nokia requests for production of documents by Ericy in connection with the UK lawsuit. So far, we have lost only two of the three U.S. actions, and may soon lose the third. But out lawyers are lovin' it.
f. You should also know that we signed a 3G agreement with IDCC in 1999, and have been shipping 3G products to countries other than the U.S., using patents allegedly owned by IDCC.
g. But we owe nothing to IDCC for these products. Why? Because they have not yet signed a "trigger" to a 3G license. Also, lucky for us, we are free to challenge 3G patents in court, rather than resort to arbitration, as we were required to do for 2G.
h. Most important, we don't want to risk another surprise, like the Ericy settlement!
i. e., If we dilly/dally, IDCC might sign a 3G license with a different "named" manufacturer, such as Lucent or Motorola, which might trigger payment of 3G royalties by Nokia.
So we decided to beat them to the punch, and filed an action in Delaware. This action aims to invalidate certain 3G patents, or otherwise obtain a declaration that we are not infringing. We admit this may seem strange to the arbitration panel, since we paid IDCC about $60 million for development of 3G, and have incorporated some of their inventions in our current products. But 3G is none of the panel's business, so they have to butt out.
i. Regardless of how Delaware is decided, we won't renew our 3G license with IDCC when it expires at the end of 2006.
j. In that connection, we regret that we have lost our U.S. leadershhip to Motorola. They are shipping 3G phones to America, which is the largest market in the world, while we are not. However, if we shipped certain duo-mode phones to America, IDCC might claim infringment. So, to avoid this, and to hedge against a loss in Delaware, we are designing around IDCC's patents, and will not sell such phones in the U.S. for about two years.
k. This is driving our sales people nuts because, for the next two years, they have to work harder in other countries to keep our world-wide market share on target. But we believe saving $1.00 a phone is worth it, even though we're deliberately conceding that huge market to Europe, the Japanese, the Koreans, and the upcoming Chinese.
j. By the way, you may be wondering about the UK lawsuit. Well, here's our theory:
In the event we lose in arbitration, we are hedging our bets and suing to invalidate certain IDCC 2G patents in the UK. This may also seem strange to the arbitration panel, because we have previously paid royalties to IDCC for 2G. Nonetheless, we're disputing not only the Ericy 2G trigger in the U.S., but also the validity of 2G patents in the UK. If that's confusing, talk to our lawyers. They think it's great.
At the moment, it appears that only one thing can straighten out this huge mess that IDCC has created:
It's called a settlement.
Our lawyers don't think that's great. But we're thinking it over, because the arbitration hearing has concluded, and they tell us time is running out.
I'll take the fees.
Let Jorma handle the egg.
One thing at a time.
NOK's scatter gun approach had five legal actions going at once.
They've now lost two relatively minor skirmishes, and could see another loss next week, in NC.
That would leave Delaware and the UK.
Although far larger battles, it would appear that neither will affect the arb. decision.
This leaves NOK with little but legal fees and egg on their face, in the first three rounds.
Any time NOK doesn't get what it wants in court, it's got to be a win.
Re-read Whizzer's posts.
I agree.
My own timetable for significant news is the Ides of March.
Just a coincidence that IDCC must respond by that date.
Never underestimate the power of PACER.
Where else can the average investor get the latest dope on NOK's adverse rulings, than IHUB.
Two down, three to go.
Whizz.
"In North Carolina case, the Court heard oral argument in December on the same Motion by Nokia brought against Sony-Ericy. No decision has yet been posted."
Is it likely that the court in NC will hear about the Texas decision?
Thanks.
Not that we're keeping score, but that would appear to be strike two on Jorma.
Not big strikes, to be sure. But The Asp of Espoo can't be happy with his high-priced legal boyz.
Whizz.
Does this appear to mean that the judge believes NOK already has enough information, and the parties should agree as to how much of that information can be made public, in the UK suit?
Thanks, BT.
Small comfort, but it's nice to know someone else is giving NOK a little tussle.
Never take your eye from a coiling rattlesnake.
BT.
What's with the last entry?
Does it appear that SNE is objecting to NOK's withdrawal, or have they withdrawn a different motion?
Could investors believe that Harry missed out in December, and is now ready to sell, along with the two other top officers?
Investors are wary, and looking for anything that smacks of success or failure in the arb. hearings.
Even if he sells for good reason, they will ignore the fact that he still has almost 300,000 shares.
My mistake.
When she moved to Hewlett in 1999, the stock was over $70.
Just before her resignation, it was $20.
32%?
Yeah.
Carly intergrated two companies, and Hewlett stock dropped 67%.
Is this the first crack in NOK's legal armor?
A 10 year old could have filed this action. But I like it anyhow.
I'll drink to that!
Let's hope so Jim.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if we had a little PR, preceding the earnings report.
Thanks for posting something of substance, DR.
I'm amazed at the posts on IHUB this morning.
So, whatever happened to the typical response, where IDCC denies everything, and lets the court make the next move?
That denial should take about 10 minutes.
OT. Yeah.
CRIS, a low volume stock, also traded two big blocks at the identical times as IDCC.
Waterhouse.
101,718.