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.
I was fascinated by your post, Malko.
If, indeed, NOK slapped the panel member in the face, wouldn't NOK's lawyers advise against doing so?
Double-slap?
As we all know, NOK said to the world,
"This arbitration is not about 3G."
Magilla.
Post of the day, IMO.
Thanks.
L2V.
The Golden Rule:
"If you can't explain a stock to your wife, ask questions".
The agreement header should have said:
This is a non-agreement.
Any similarity between this agreement and standard agreements, is purely fictional and unintentional.
Boo/O'Dog.
Thanks. I think I've got it.
Given Loop's comments about NOK's 3G action, I was obviously curious whether (it appears) we had any counter-arguments.
Thank you, Ronnie.
Mschere/Loop.
I shoulda stuck with the car business, where life was simple.
The bottom line appears to be that NOK owes us nothing for TDD, unless they produce a duo-mode handset.
And I presume that applies to sales throughout the world.
OK, Loop.
But we non-lawyers, non-wireless engineers, still need to know:
Is NOK getting free use of TDD thru 2006?
OK, stop the presses, Boo.
Are you saying that, if NOK uses TDD patents, they don't have to pay, even after January 1, 2002?
I wholeheartedly agree!
It's amazing, but Jorma seems to still be red-faced that he signed the 1999 agreement.
DR.
At this point, you could fool me on anything.
I guess you're saying that NOK said nothing about TDD patents, and IDCC has 'em.
Stick around, amigo.
And let me ask a small question:
If NOK is trying to throw a knock-out punch on 3G, why would they omit TDD, which would give IDCC an opening?
More questions. Not expecting any answers:
Does it seem strange that NOK would sign a 3G agreement, pay tens of millions for further development of 3G, and then use NONE of those improvements in their past or future 3G handsets or infrastructure?
Will IDCC have to go thru its entire portfolio of 3G patents, to see if some 250-odd, and hundreds more claims, are also not used? What a colossal job for both IDCC and the courts! What a colossal expense!
Why does NOK repeatedly say in the 3G suit that they're not "actively" engaged in inducing others to infringe on IDCC patents? Will this be one of Howard's counter claims?
Whizz/Loop.
Ericy, et al., is already suffering a cost-disadvantage of about $15 million a year by signing-up for 2G, while NOK is paying nothing.
They should want to correct that, and might go to some lengths to do so, if they didn't hurt themselves in the process.
At the moment, their disadvantage is being partially offset, since NOK is bearing the legal expense of trying to invalidate 3G.
But signing-up for 3G at this time would put them right back in the box.
What do you think?
Damn, Daniel!
I should have registered that name. LOL.
O'Dog.
Thanks. I recall the October 1, 2001 date now.
Guess that bursts my bubble.
I think this was asked before but. . .
Did Ericy settle with IDCC when it was fully intact, and before it spun-off its handset division to the JV?
TIA.
This missing quote from one of Jorma's speeches, was one of his best:
"Patents are anti-competitive".
Nite all.
So. Is Jorma just having a last minute temper tantrum, or has he been a behind-the-scenes trouble-maker all along?
1. He tells the UK court to throw out certain IDCC patents for 2G.
2. He demands information from the Dallas court regarding the Ericy settlement.
3. He then demanded the same from the NC court.
4. He demands pre-arb. discovery, after the hearings have already started.
5. He demands that Ericy attend the Arb. hearing.
6. He tells the arbitrators to throw out the 1999 agreement regarding 2G.
7. He tells the Delaware court to invalidate certain IDCC patents regarding 3G.
Even more points could be added. But given this background, he now rises to the top of my list, as the chief "indemnifier", and he may not be the only one.
O'Dog.
Unfortunately, I'm a little behind the curve, because I'm just picking up on the action against Lucent.
It's probably been metioned before, but since Lucent was apparently a named licensee, Howard probably thought his best and easiet case was having Tantivy do the dirty work.
Here's hoping that Lucent's misdeeds are worth signing a 3G license, and getting the antenna patents for little or nothing.
This could be a factor in the recent burst of legalesse from our friend, The Snake, especially the 3G lawsuit. Even if Jorma was a dummy, Tantivy's action has got to be weighing on his evil little mind.
O'Dog.
Thanks.
I notice they seem to pay a lot of attention to assessing interest when payment is not made as contracted.
A question or two, oh wise ones from LawVille.
In a regular trial, the judge usually cites the law when making a decision.
In an arbitration, do the panel members give reasons for their decision? And do they normally cite the law, or give their opinions as to what the parties intended?
TIA.
More questions/comments:
1. Wasn't Ericy a far larger handset producer than Sony when the JV was formed? (In fact, I have rarely seen a Sony handset in a retail store).
In that respect, Ericy could account for 75% or more of SNE sales. The point? If Ericy sales were 20% of SNE sales, the picture might be a little more cloudy.
2. Further, if Ericy had liquidated its handset division, few would argue that NOK had a solid case. However, handset and infrastructure sales can still be identified with ease, and SNE just made a timely royalty payment to IDCC.
NOK seems to walking the Yellow Brick Road, saying to the panel, "Pay no attention to those two guys behind the curtain!"
Pizza time.
I couldn't fail to not agree with you more, Ima.
Words of wisdom from sunny San Clemente.
I would put QCOM in the number two spot.
Not nearly as much to gain. But One stop shopping is all the rage.
Make it five, and it's a deal. LOL.
Beats me, Gab. But it's only one contract.
All I know is, Nokia has the most to gain, bar none, by acquiring IDCC.
Ray.
Place your bets, amigo, and don't stay in the shower too long in the morning.
Will it be a loss, a settlement, a fair award by the Arb., or a buyout?
Lots of choices. But I'm not counting out the latter.
After Jorma gets thru flailing around, he may decide that royalties aren't all that bad; especially when he can pay them to himself, and pick up a couple of billion in other near/medium-term gains.
When it comes to growth, we've got it. And he needs it.
Of course.
But when two parties agree to an extension, it appears to be more positive than negative.
After all, they could have folded within the original time frame, and thumbed their noses at the whole process.
Compare this with what NOK is doing, and it has the right odor.
So. Tantivy may not be just selling antennas these days. LOL.
Pretty hard for Lucent to claim anything positive in that little tidbit. Especially when both parties agree to an extension.
Could they be playing it straight, while The Snake is still striking at IDCC's heels at every opportunity?
Thanks. The best news we've had in days!
Thanks. That's what I was looking for.
Whizz.
I got your drift. But I was referring to your last sentence:
"Our management, then, should not be suprised about these latest Nokia events."
Filing suit is one thing. But saying they were afraid of a lawsuit from IDCC seemed a bit much, especially since the arb. was still in session.
Whizz.
Do you not believe that IDCC kicked over the can, and sent them a nasty letter.
If they didn't, the Delaware court should have a hard time believing that NOK is in danger of being sued. (By a flea, I might add).
You're on it, Gab! LOL.
Yeah, I know.
But like Emeril, you just cranked it up a notch!
Good point, Gab.
I wonder how Jorma would feel, if an arb. award to IDCC would finance IDCC's defense on 3G.