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.
Greedaintbad/gman: My message to NASDAQ explains their error:
REPORTING ERROR
Page 4 of your Stock Report - Institutional Holdings for Interdigital Communications (IDCC), shows Heartland Advisors I holding 75,340 shares as of 12/31/03, a decrease of 2,570,260 shares.
The reported holdings of 75,340 shares is in error. The SEC Form 13F-HR filed by Heartland reported the amount of $75,340 as the dollar value of their IDCC holdings, NOT the number of shares. Total shares actually held as of 12/31/03 was reported as 3,650,197, an INCREASE of 1,004,597, not a decrease.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/937394/000119312504022642/d13fhr.txt
The ownership of 3,650,197 as of 12/31/03 was also reported by Heartland Advisors on a separate SEC Form 13G filing.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/937394/000093739404000080/idcc.txt
Ericsson: US$4.5bil investment in 2G and 3G
BY B.K. SIDHU
TELECOM operators in 13 Asian countries will be investing about US$4.5bil in existing second-generation (2G) networks and for third-generation (3G) deployment over the next two years, according to Ericsson South-East Asia president Mats H. Olsson.
About US$4bil is expected to go towards upgrading and capacity enhancements in existing 2G and 2.5G infrastructure mainly, and the balance US$500,000 to new 3G deployment in 2005.And Ericsson – the world’s largest supplier of mobile telecom infrastructure with 35%-40% market share in GSM/WCDMA (global system for mobile communications/Wideband code division multiple access) – hoped to secure a sizeable chunk of the US$4.5bil, Olsson said.
“We have about 30% market share, but we are not necessarily satisfied with that. We will try very hard to growth this further,’’ he told a press briefing at the company’s South-East Asia headquarters in Cyberjaya yesterday.
The confidence stems not only from the company's leadership position but also from the fact that Ericsson has returned to the black.
After 3 years of slowdown, the global telecoms industry is recovering and stabilising, which has prompted operators to increase investments in infrastructure.
Mats H. OlssonAlthough most investments in the 13 countries are expected to be for 2G expansion, Olsson expects 3G to be successively introduced and rolled-out in Asean, with Malaysia and Singapore well on their way, followed closely by Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.
Apart from the 10 Asean countries, the other three are Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
“The year 2004 is very promising and exciting times are ahead, as there are new licenses being issued for 3G, and increased GSM investment for coverage and capacity,’’ Olsson said.
He said globally, only 21% of the population used mobile phones; every day about half a million subscribers sign up for mobile services.
There are about 1 billion mobile users globally. This will increase to 2 billion by end-2008, with 80% of the growth coming from emerging markets. In Malaysia, Telekom Malaysia Bhd, one of 2 spectrum assignees, has rolled out 3G in selected areas. Ericsson is one of the 5 vendors providing pilot trials for the telco.
The other assignee, Maxis Communications Bhd, has appointed Ericsson as its prime infrastructure partner for 3G deployment and the key supplier for 2G. Maxis expects to commercially offer 3G-based services by the year-end.
A 3rd mobile operator, DiGi Telecommunications Sdn Bhd, has opted for EDGE (enhanced data rates for global evolution), for which Ericsson is one of the 2 vendors contracted to deploy. Olsson said the drivers for 3G would be higher capacity and speed; new services; cost-efficiency, including for voice; extension of 2G with regard to roaming; and operators' ability to segmentise markets to maximise revenue streams.
Jim: If I am reading this correctly, the SEC may have jurisdiction over foreign investors for insider trading in some instances.
The Extraterritorial Application Of United States Securities Laws To Punish Insider Trading
By Daniel Kramer and Megan Elizabeth Murray Schulte Roth & Zabel, New York, NY
Review of Securities & Commodities Regulation - Vol. 35, No. 7, Pgs. 65-71
Overview: Describes the jurisdictional tests that US courts have developed to extend the reach of the federal securities laws against insider trading in foreign transactions. Comments on recent cases involving both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, when the trading deals with stock listed on an American exchange.
To reach or not to reach. While securities trading has become global, securities laws and regulations remain primarily national. Increasingly, the United States has attempted to address this issue by applying the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws to foreign defendants. To do so, US prosecutors must overcome several jurisdictional hurdles. Although Congress has the constitutional power to extend the reach of US statutes to beyond the nation’s borders, US law generally presumes against extraterritorial application unless Congress clearly indicates its intent to apply a statute internationally. Not surprisingly, the Depression-era Congress did not expressly state that the 1934 Act should apply outside US borders. However, the courts—citing public policy reasons—have often found that they have subject-matter jurisdiction over transnational cases of securities fraud.
Conduct test for jurisdiction. Two judicial tests evaluate subject-matter jurisdiction in international securities-fraud cases: the conduct test and the effects test. Under the first test, an American court will exercise jurisdiction if the defendant’s conduct in the United States involved particular actions within the country that directly harmed foreign investors. The actions cannot be mere preparation for fraud but must be actual conduct, such as substantial misrepresentations made within the country. Courts differ on the extent of the conduct required. Some courts consider whether the defendant committed all elements of the violation within the United States, even if the harm occurs elsewhere. Others look to whether material conduct within the country directly caused the loss, but some accept jurisdiction with a lesser quantum of harmful conduct.
Effects test for jurisdiction. Under the effects test, federal courts may exercise jurisdiction when conduct abroad has a sufficiently adverse effect on US investors or markets. As the Second Circuit explained long ago in Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook (1968), Congress intended the 1934 Act to apply internationally so as to protect domestic investors who purchase foreign securities on US exchanges. Some courts assume jurisdiction if the fraud involves US-listed securities, even if the trade takes place abroad and involves foreign nationals. Other courts require plaintiffs to show that a defendant’s conduct tangibly injured the plaintiff.
Getting personal. Courts must also consider whether they have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Due process demands that the defendant have minimum contacts with the jurisdiction and that exercising personal jurisdiction, under the circumstances, is reasonable. Under the minimum-contacts inquiry, the court determines whether the defendant "purposefully directed activity" at the forum’s residents and whether that activity caused injury. For the reasonableness inquiry, the court weighs the defendant’s burden if it exercises jurisdiction against the plaintiff’s convenience, the efficiency in using one forum over another, and the various jurisdictions’ common concern in reaching a just resolution.
Long arm not long enough. Taking into account the country’s strong interest in combatting insider trading, courts generally find the US securities laws are enforceable extraterritorially. One court, in SEC v. Unifund SAL (1990), allowed personal jurisdiction over a foreign company that had purchased shares of a US company through investment banks located in Lebanon and Switzerland. The rationale: the defendant had traded through the foreign offices of American brokerage firms, the stock traded exclusively on an American exchange, and the trade cleared through a US company. The court held that the defendant could clearly see its trade would have impact in the United States. In SEC v. Euro Sec. Fund (1999), the court exercised jurisdiction over a foreign national who had purchased stock in a Dutch company, because the stock traded exclusively on the New York Stock Exchange. Nevertheless, the court in SEC v. Alexander (2001) decided the law’s arm was not long enough. An Italian national, using inside information from her daughter, sold her shares in an Italian company, whose ADRs trade on the NYSE. Finding that the defendant had initiated her trades in Italy and through an Italian bank, even though the sale occurred as ADRs in New York, the court held that she had not purposefully and knowingly availed herself of the American securities markets’ facilities.
OT: bulldzr.: This is from Internet Explorer for the MAC. If it is not the same for Windows go to IE Help, find cookies from the Index and go from there.
Enable or disable cookies
1. On the Edit menu, click Preferences.
2. Under Receiving Files, click Cookies.
3. On the When receiving cookies pop-up menu, click the option you want.
Corp-Buyer: The statements are related to SEC filing requirements. The statement that " the securities referred to above were acquired and are held in the ordinary course of business and were not acquired and are not held for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer of the securities and were not acquired and are not held in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having that purpose or effect." allows the acquirer to file a 13G instead of a 13D. The 13G allows reporting 45 days afer yearend, while the 13D requires reporting within 10 days.
From SEC rules
"A person who would otherwise be obligated under paragraph (a) of this section to file a statement on Schedule 13D may, in lieu thereof, file with the Commission, a short-form statement on Schedule 13G, Provided, That:
i. Such person has acquired such securities in the ordinary course of his business and not with the purpose nor with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer, nor in connection with or as a participant in any transaction having such purpose or effect, including any transaction subject to Rule 13d-3(b); and"
Jim: My prvious response to DWS describes the error. I am going to e-mail NASDAQ.
Posted by: olddog967
In reply to: dws who wrote msg# 57936
Date:2/13/2004 5:36:28 PM
Post #of 58044
dws: The NASDAQ entry is an evident mistyping on someone's part. The 75,340 NASDAQ reported as shares was actually the $value of the 3,650,197 shares Heartland reported. ($20.63/share @ 12/31/03)
Jim: With all the excitement about the stock’s action yesterday, I decided to hold off on answering uour question . The following briefly summarizes, the SEC rules regarding ownership reporting. Based on my reading, the 10 day rule did not apply and Heartland Advisors was correct in filing an SEC Form 13G within 45 after the end of the year. (The 13G reporting is a different requirement than the 13F-HR quarterly report of institutional holdings which was also filed yesterday. )
Any person who acquires beneficial ownership of any equity security of more than five percent , shall, within 10 days after the acquisition, file with the Commission, a statement containing the information required by Schedule 13D.
A person who would be obligated to file a Schedule 13D may, in lieu , file a short-form Schedule 13G, Provided, that (among other exemptions) such person is An investment advisor (Heartland files as an investment advisor).
The Schedule 13G shall be filed within 45 days after the end of the calendar year in which the person became obligated to report. However, if the person's beneficial ownership exceeds 10 percent prior to the end of the calendar year, the initial Schedule 13G shall be filed within 10 days after the end of the first month in which the person's beneficial ownership exceeds 10 percent.
There are other rules relating to a 20 percent ownership figure, when the stock acquisition is made in trying to obtain control, and, a separate set of rules covers amended returns. For those interested, the following give the actual rules:
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-1.html
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule13d-2.html
dws: The NASDAQ entry is an evident mistyping on someone's part. The 75,340 NASDAQ reported as shares was actually the $value of the 3,650,197 shares Heartland reported. ($20.63/share @ 12/31/03)
Jim: What’s also interesting about Hearland is their history. From the 8.643,500 shares that they held as of 9/30/99 they reduced that to 3,384,600 as of 12/30/99. For the next three and a half years they slowly reduced their holdings until a low of 1,060,300 as of 6/30/03. Now they are back up to 3,650,197.
They must see something they like, picking up about 2.6 M shares in the past six months.
Jim: The amount reported is from Hearland Advisors, as an institutional manager. It covers the holdings of all funds they manage.
[X] 13F HOLDINGS REPORT. (Check here if all holdings of this reporting manager are reported in this report.)
<<now my guess is the other Heartland fund will also increase.>>
3G: I think giving us a plan of action is a good idea. However, after the recent brouhaha about not signing licenses(pl) by yearend, I doubt whether they will be putting out any timelines.
Jim: teecee had the names a little mixed up. IDCC has it listed as Fidelity Management & Research , not Fidelity Research & Management. On the Nasdaq site it is listed as FMR for the same 205,000 shares as of 9/30/03.
Paheka: We are in agreement. What you call a "story stock", I just called it a "special situation". Maybe after the earnings conf call the story will get out to more people.
Mschere: I believe that there is a duplication. The following is a listing of the top 3 Institutional and Mutual Fund Owners as listed by YAHOO. As you can see, they show 32% as the combined total. . In addition, the 2,645,600 shares reported for Heartland Advisors as an institutional holder is the total amount reported by them to the SEC as shares over which they have control
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 32%
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
Holder ...........................................................Shares
Heartland Advisors Inc................................2,645,600
Credit Suisse Asset Managemen.............1,179,000
Arbor Capital Management, LLC................1,084,400
TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS
Holder............................................................,,,,,,,,,,,,Shares
Heartland Value Fund............................................750,000
WM Group of Funds-Small Cap Stock Fund......422,100
Credit Suisse Tr-Small Cap Growth Portfolio....412,100
rmarchma: In regard to "Olddog how did you happen upon IDCC", a friend mentioned IDCC as a stock that he held.
When I initially looked it up my reaction was negative i.e. no "real" business, income derived from just a few foreign customers, lots of litigation, and I had a hard time understanding all the various technical terms and acronyms that related to the industry. However, after lurking for a while reading the postings, I became a little more comfortable and decided that there was something here that I should look into. Wirelessledger.com was also very helpful in my education. Because of what I consider the big dependence on future happenings, I would still call IDCC a speculation, but I also believe it is a "special situation" that could give a much larger return than the overall market.
L2V: I agree with your approach. The problem is when the timing is off it can be frustratrating. We read every day about all these new contract awards for 3G installations, and about how handset sales are booming, but we get nothing from IDCC except that they are actively pursuing licensees. I guess it is just a waiting game.
I only started investing in IDCC late last year, and have been adding ever since. I had some pretty good gains on stocks that I had loaded up on when they were near their lows last year. So, I was looking to get out of them into something that I believed still had good appreciation potential even if the market didn't do too much. I felt then and still believe that is the case with IDCC.
Data_Rox: Nice find, but with all the ifs, ands and buts, it is going to take a little time to figure out what they are talking about.
mschere: For my own education. Since I am am not a tech person, how is it possible to tell be just reading the limited patent description that "2 are basic to CDMA and the other is basic to TDD/CDMA and TDD/TDMA"? I also noted that used used the word "Fundamental" rather than "Essential".
mschere: We are just assuming ( and it probably is a valid assumption) that Nokia's "provisions set aside for IDCC". However, it seems they are doing everything possible to end up not paying, or at least get a better overall deal.
Mschere: After reading this article and your previous post in regard to Psion, it is apparent that Nokia is playing for keeps "to dominate the direction of the mobile sector." IDCC is a small fish swimming with the sharks. I also "Hope" that our patents are strong and truly essential, so that eventually we will prosper.
rmarchma: You saved the best for last:
"I've heard that Nokia's legal counsel has tried to request certain sealed documents from the court, and that Judge Lynn has turned down each request thus far."
I assume their requests started out with what they consider the more important documents. If their requests keep getting rejected, IMO that would be more reason for Nokia to settle.
spree99: As you state previous arbitrations took approximately one year, and that is about what it could take if you follow the ICC time lines.
The latest info regarding the arbitration is the following quote
from L2V's post on the Emerald Conf. If you take the "in the midst" quote literally, the arbitration is just about where it should be based on a one year period. I guess we will have to wait for the earnings conf call to possibly find out more.
<<"In the midst" of an arbitration process to decide 2G rates for Nokia and Samsung was as far as he went after doing a nice job of summarizing that situation. He got a few questions as he spoke, but deferred them to the break out session after lunch. Very matter of fact and confident in relating the background on that stuff. >>
Dictionary Definition of "in the midst"
The adverb "in the midst" has 1 senses.
1. midmost, in the midst, in the middle -- the middle or central part or point; "in the midst of the forest"; "could he walk out in the midst of his piece?"
DVM: The arbitration you referenced was that conducted by National Association of Security Dealers (NASD), not the ICC. While you are right in stating that "final arbitration is not final", as I have posted, it is very hard to overturn an arbitrator's decision.
Jim: Another discussion on appealing arbitration decisions. This one deals specifically with IP. It also states that it is pretty hard to overturn an arbitrator's decision, especially if the contract calls for binding arbitration.
Arbitration Awards in Intellectual Property Matters:
Just How Non-Appealable Are They?
Eric A. Deutsch
quint j del
Fall 2003
One of the most significant objections that is raised to the use of binding arbitration for intellectual property disputes is that the awards entered by arbitrators are virtually non-appealable. While a party technically has the remedy of seeking judicial relief if it is unhappy with an arbitrator’s award in an intellectual property matter, the standard of review of an arbitration award is extremely limited.
Essentially, other than establishing that the arbitrator was corrupt, biased or otherwise committed misconduct, a party challenging an arbitration award must convince a court reviewing an arbitrator’s award that the absence of merit of the arbitrator’s award was so extreme as to require the court to set aside the award. Stated another way, when all a court has to do is to satisfy itself that an award is not “completely irrational” or not “arbitrary and capricious” (to quote a couple of the tests that have been used by the courts), one can get the sense as to how easy it is for an arbitration award to pass muster under such limited standards of review.
Faced with such a high hurdle to challenging an objectionable arbitration award, and with very high stakes often on the table in intellectual property matters, it is not surprising that many intellectual property lawyers and the companies they represent shy away from entering into arbitration agreements where valuable intellectual property rights are at issue. Without a full appeal system in place, why run the risk of getting an arbitrator who may run amok, especially when one cannot have a “second bite at the apple” to correct the arbitrator’s errors as would be available if one were reviewing a court judgment or jury verdict?
In an effort to reduce the amount of risk involved in proceeding with what is essentially a “no appeal” process, some have begun including their own “expanded” standard of review clauses as part of arbitration provisions in contracts. In other words, rather than leave it to the case law and statutes to guide the reviewing court as to what standard of review to employ on an appeal from an arbitration award, the parties take the matter into their own hands and write a standard of review clause in such a way as to require a court to review more rigorously arbitration awards than would normally be the case. Some examples of “expanded review” clauses are provisions that allow for judicial review where there have been “errors of law” or where the arbitrator’s findings are “not supported by substantial evidence.” Under traditional standards of review of arbitration awards, neither of these levels of additional scrutiny would have been applicable to the review of an arbitrator’s award.
One might think that these individually crafted standard of review clauses should resolve the issue discussed above concerning the risk of being saddled with an atrocious, but virtually non-appealable, ruling in an intellectual property arbitration. After all, inasmuch as the right to arbitration derives from a contract, should not the parties be able to draft whatever standard of review clause they would like? Not so, according to a few of the appellate courts. These courts have reasoned that the legal framework that provides for limited review of arbitration awards cannot be modified by the parties to alter the standard of review. These courts have essentially held that “arbitration is arbitration” and that limited review of arbitration awards by courts is mandated by statute and/or case law, and, no matter what the parties say, the standard of review cannot be changed. Moreover, critics of “expanded review” clauses assert that, if we allow these types of provisions to be enforced, we are interfering with one of the very tenets of arbitration, i.e., finality, and we are turning the arbitration process into the court process, a result that defeats the purposes of arbitration.
Fortunately, several other appellate courts have disagreed with these rulings, and have held that parties can in fact expand by contract the scope of judicial review. The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet weighed in on the issue. Although a conflict in rulings by the appellate courts is often a precursor to a Supreme Court ruling to clarify the issue, there is no indication that the Supreme Court will address this issue anytime soon.
What should companies do in the interim (i.e., without any Supreme Court guidance) regarding whether to insert arbitration clauses in their agreements? The answer is that, until the Supreme Court weighs in on this issue, there still remains a substantial possiblity that an “expanded review” clause may ultimately be upheld, thus providing a greater degree of comfort to a party that wishes to reserve the right to challenge an arbitration award on grounds similar to those used to challenge court judgments and verdicts. Therefore, while the conflict in the appellate courts casts some cloud of uncertainty over the enforceability of such provisions, the incremental effort involved in the drafting of an “expanded review” clause may be worth it should a dispute arise down the line.
Arbitration still may not be the right answer for everyone. That decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis and should take into account whether the other features of arbitration (speed, efficiency, cost, lack of a written opinion, etc.) weigh in favor of, or against, arbitration in the particular situation at hand given the interests of the particular party. However, to the extent that the “no right of appeal” concern led some to an automatic rejection of arbitration as a resolution mechanism for intellectual property issues in the past, that issue should be re-visited because an avenue may now exist to allow parties to agree to a greater scope of review than would otherwise be available.
http://www.tht.com/pubs/SearchMatchPub.asp?ArticleID=968
Jim: Although it may be "binding arbitration", I think the losing party can always go to court to appeal the decision.
However, I also understand that courts generally will not overturn an arbitrator's decison unless there was something really wrong with the process.
<<International treaties such as the Convention of New York of 10 June 1958 and the Geneva Convention of 21 April 1961, have been drawn up for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of arbitral awards by restricting review by state courts to a limited number of essential points, such as the capacity of the parties to subscribe to an arbitration agreement, compliance with the terms of such agreement regarding the scope of the arbitration, the formation of the arbitral tribunal and the proceedings, the assurance that the parties have been given full opportunity to present their cases, and compliance with public policy in the country where an application is made for the award to be set aside or enforced.>>
We need to get those Japanese patents straightened out:
Matsushita sees Y1 trln cell phone sales by 06/07
Monday February 9, 3:33 am ET
TOKYO, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd (Tokyo:6752.T - News), the maker of Panasonic brand electronics, said on Monday it expects sales of its mobile phones to rise 250 percent over the next three years to around one trillion yen ($9.44 billion).
It forecast global sales of 40 million units of mobile phones by the business year starting on April 1, 2006, and a market share of more than eight percent.
Matsushita posted an eight percent rise in quarterly profits last Friday and lifted its full-year forecast on the back of brisk sales of plasma TVs, DVD recorders and mobile phones.
The Osaka-based electronics maker lifted its full-year net profit estimate by 17 percent to 35 billion yen for the business year to March 31. Matsushita posted a loss of 19.45 billion yen in 2002/03. ($1=105.94 Yen)
imalurker/L2V: I also was under the impression that the arbitration should finalize the Nokia/IDCC dispute. However, after reading about other large amount arbitration cases, I am not so sure. I guess it will depend on how the Nokia disputes clause is written, and what specifics are covered by the arbitration.
The following site has summaries of 40 large arbitrations. It is interesting to see how in many cases the arbitration did not result in a final settlement.
http://www.americanlawyer.com/focuseurope/bigarbitrations.html
mschere: The only thing that could be different about the timing is that the ICC rules do not set a 15 day time limit for selecting the third arbitrator. However, since we don't know the terms of the Nokia contract disputes clause, it may or may not have a stipulated time limit. In any event, I am sure the third arbitrator has been selected, and that they are probably now in the hearing phase.
ICC rules
<<Where the dispute is to be referred to three arbitrators, each party shall nominate in the Request and the Answer, respectively, one arbitrator for confirmation. If a party fails to nominate an arbitrator, the appointment shall be made by the Court. The third arbitrator, who will act as chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal, shall be appointed by the Court, unless the parties have agreed upon another procedure for such appointment, in which case the nomination will be subject to confirmation pursuant to Article 9. Should such procedure not result in a nomination within the time limit fixed by the parties or the Court, the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the Court.>>
(OT)imalurker: You beat me by a few years. I first hit Japan in early 51, before going to Korea. For Japan anyway, those were remembered as the good old days for the occupation troops.
Jim: Sorry to reminisce, but the board is pretty quiet.
OT: Jim: Interesting. As with any language, nuances can mean a lot.
L2V: Thanks for your comments, your reasoning sounds logical. I guess we will just have to wait.
I enjoyed your comments about doing business in Japan and working with the bureaucracy. Although long before your time in Japan, I remember that "sumimasen" was a word that was often repeated during conversations.
For other readers not familiar with Japanese: Sumimasen translates as: I am sorry/excuse me/I have no excuse for (something).
Jim: I just noted that the JPO data base that I used was last updated on 09/30/03; but, based on Janet's comment apparently there was nothing new since then. I intend checking it every once in a while to see what shows up.
brokentrade: Great quote. It looks like their lawyers are really grasping at straws.
OT: Although young at heart, I don't think young dog would be appropriate. I enjoy internet searching as you can find almost anything, and the logic involved in the searches helps keep the old brain cells active.
L2v: Among the Japanese patent applications I found, was the following "Paneth" patent. The interesting thing about ths one, was that after it was filed in Aug 01, it was abandoned in Feb 03. This was the only application that had that notation. Any idea why IDCC would do that?
PATENT ABSTRACTS OF JAPAN
(11)Publication number : 2002-204483
(43)Date of publication of application : 19.07.2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(51)Int.CI.
H04Q 7/38
H04J 3/00
H04J 4/00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(21)Application number : 2001-246767 (71)Applicant : INTERDIGITAL TECHNOL CORP
(22)Date of filing : 26.02.1986 (72)Inventor : PANETH ERIC
HANDZEL MARK J
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(30)Priority
Priority number : 1985 713925 Priority date : 20.03.1985 Priority country : US
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(54) SUBSCRIBER RF TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MULTIPLE SPEECH AND/OR DATA SIGNALS SIMULTANEOUSLY OVER EITHER A SINGLE OR A PLURALITY OF RF CHANNELS
(57)Abstract:
PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a subscriber RF telephone system that uses FDMA/TDMA to enhance the frequency utilizing efficiency.
SOLUTION: Using wireless digital time division multiplex transmission circuits between a base station and a plurality of fixed or mobile subscriber stations, many information signals are wirelessly transmitted. The number of time division multiple circuits by each RF channel is determined by the transmission quality of the signals. The information signals are voice signal, data signal and video or the like. The modulation level of the signals and the transmission power of the base stations are adjusted in accordance with signal error detection in the system. Space diversity by a plurality of antennas is used to avoid adverse effect of fading. A combination of a transmission channel circuit that processes a plurality of received information signals to be simultaneously sent to different subscriber stations via prescribed RF channels and a reception channel circuit that processes signals simultaneously received via prescribed RF channels from different subscriber stations can activate the operation of each of RF channel pairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL STATUS
[Date of request for examination] 15.08.2001
[Date of sending the examiner's decision of rejection]
[Kind of final disposal of application other than the examiner's decision of rejection or application converted registration] abandonment
[Date of final disposal for application] 26.02.2003
[Patent number]
[Date of registration]
[Number of appeal against examiner's decision of rejection]
[Date of requesting appeal against examiner's decision of rejection]
[Date of extinction of right]
Copyright (C); 1998,2003 Japan Patent Office
arm: I am pretty sure that Nokia must be involved with other cases of IPR infringement; however, they probably weren't considered significant enough to merit a specific comment. The 21m credit for Utilized During the Year, would indicate that the recorded amounts probably included other cases.
Although the IDCC case is not strictly one of IPR infringement, as mschere stated, the general consensus is that the provision probably covers a potential liability to IDCC.
amr; In the reports comments on Litigation, there are other legal issues commented on, but none of them relate to IPR infringement.
Data Rox: If you look at the Siemans site you will see that they list some of the same items. From what I have read both Siemans and NEC independently manufacture and sell the JV items.
http://www.siemens.ie/mobile/umts/radioaccess.htm
Nokia’s Annual Report has been published. Here are abstracts concerning provisions for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringements, and a comment on the IDCC arbitraton.
Provisions
Provisions are recognized when the Group has a present legal or constructive obligation as a result of past events, it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate of the amount can be made. Where the Group expects a provision to be reimbursed, the reimbursement would be recognized as an asset but only when the reimbursement is virtually certain.
The Group recognizes a provision for the estimated future settlements related to asserted and unasserted Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringements, based on the probable outcome of each case as of each balance sheet date.
At January 1, 2003.................................273 EURm
Exchange differences................................0
Additional provisions.............................119
Change in fair value ..................................0
Unused amounts reversed......................0
Charged to profit and loss account.... 119
Utilized during year .................................(21)
At December 31, 2003...........................371
Provision for intellectual property rights, or IPR, infringements
We provide for the estimated future settlements related to asserted and unasserted IPR infringements based on the probable outcome of each infringement. The ultimate outcome or actual cost of settling an individual infringement may vary from our estimates.
Our products and solutions include increasingly complex technologies involving numerous patented and other proprietary technologies. Although we proactively try to ensure that we are aware of any patents related to our products and solutions under development and thereby avoid inadvertent infringement of proprietary technologies, the nature of our business is such that patent infringements may and do occur. Through contact with parties claiming infringement of their patented technology, or through our own monitoring of developments in patent cases involving our competitors, we identify potential IPR infringements.
We estimate the outcome of all potential IPR infringements made known to us through assertion by third parties, or through our own monitoring of patent-related cases in the relevant legal systems. To the extent that we determine that an identified potential infringement will more likely than not result in an outflow of resources, we record a liability based on our best estimate of the expenditure required to settle infringement proceedings.
Our experience with claims of IPR infringement is that there is typically a discussion period with the accusing party, which can last from several months to years. In cases where a settlement is not reached, the discovery and ensuing legal process typically lasts a minimum of one year. For this reason, the ultimate outflow relating to IPR infringement claims can last for varying periods of time, resulting in irregular movements in the IPR infringement provision.
Legal Issues
In 1999, Nokia entered into a license agreement with InterDigital Technology Corporation (IDT) for certain technology that provided for a fixed royalty payment through 2001 and most favored licensee treatment from 2002 through 2006. The patents being licensed were subject to litigation by other manufacturers. In March 2003, IDT settled patent litigation with Ericsson and Sony-Ericsson and announced that it intended to apply the settlement royalty rates to Nokia under the most favored licensee provision. After failed attempts at negotiating a settlement, Nokia filed an arbitration demand seeking access to information necessary to an evaluation of the matter that has been withheld by IDC. IDC has responded with a counterclaim seeking to apply the Ericsson and Sony-Ericsson royalty rates to Nokia. Nokia believes that the claim is without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924613/000104746904003423/a2127459z20-f.htm#toc_dn1133_2
If we could only get our Matsushita patents straightened out:
Reuters
Matsushita lifts profit f'cast at cellphone unit
Friday February 6, 2:11 am ET
TOKYO, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Matsushita Electric Industrial Co (Tokyo:6752.T - News), the maker of Panasonic electronics, said on Friday it was boosting its operating profit forecast at its mobile phone unit to 15 billion yen ($141.8 million) from 12 billion yen.
Matsushita has enjoyed strong demand for its camera-mounted mobile phones in Japan and pushed into overseas markets such as China. ($1=105.76 yen)