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.
Loop.
Guess that makes a win at the Arb. even more critical.
Whizz.
As I recall, it was Jorma himself who said patents are anti-competitive.
I prefer your optimistic scenario.
The parties identified the trigger, and most observers believe it had to include Ericy, one of the top dogs of the day.
But despite the splitup, little has changed:
Both are paying royalties, because infrastructure sales can still be identified thru Ericy, and handset sales can still be identified thru SNE.
Trying to snooker the panel will get them nowhere, IMO.
The same thought went thru my mind.
Some investors react to such news.
Boo.
Thanks.
Actually, I was just taking a little license with the date of Heartland's filing, and the dates of the insider sales.
Just my warped sense of humor working overtime.
BooSter.
What did you say?
Musta been nasty.
Dog.
As you saw, I put "buy" in quotes.
Thanks, Whizz.
I know nothing is simple in your game.
Just trying to anticpate what might come next.
Terrific timing.
Heartland files their "buy" on the 31st.
Howard/Rip sell on the 28th/29th.
Whizz. OK.
So, why wouldn't NOK go to a NY court with a discovery subpoena? According to many filings, the formal arbitration process is highly supported by U.S. law.
Also, if NOK lost in Texas, what's the big deal if they also lose in NY?
Sorry for being a pest. But so much of what's going on just doesn't make sense.
Hook.
Things are getting clearer every day. LOL.
Whizzer.
I read it quite differently.
Ericy seemed to be saying that only a NY court can enforce the subpoena, because that's where the arb. panel is sitting.
They cited several past cases, to back up their contention.
They also don't like being embroiled in an arb., where they're not a party.
I got the impression that, if NOK goes to a NY court, they'll get what they want.
L2V.
After seeing all the recent legal flack from Nokia, one wonders why they ever signed with IDCC in 1999.
Nokia knew IDCC was nearly bankrupt, and locked in a bitter battle with Ericy, which was slowly draining all of its remaining resources.
So why did they suddenly decide to change the course of IDCC's history with a near-$100 million life preserver, rather than just letting it die on the vine?
Some think that Nokia never thought they'd make it anyhow. But the complex and far ranging agreement was clearly not drafted in haste by a two-bit law firm.
With hundreds of millions now at stake, not to mention Nokia's high-fallutin' reputation, Jorma must be wondering the same thing.
DR. Also, a strong culture that "Not invented here" means it ain't no good.
Too bad. One of the greatest labs in the world.
Lucent engineers should strongly consider applying for this position.
Thanks guys.
I learned a lot today, and couldn't have kept up if the markets were open.
I now know why NOK sued IDCC in the UK.
I know why NOK sued Ericy/SNE in Texas and NC.
I'm still a little shocked that NOK chose to take us to the principal's office, just because we apparently sent them a nasty letter about 3G.
Why?
Because a company with 51,000 employees and billions in the bank, doesn't usually run scared of one with 300 employees. Unless, of course. . . . . . .
And if you think you don't have an effect on IDCC's fortunes, all you need to do is click on "Google", enter IDCC in the box, scroll down a bit, and you'll see actual IHUB postings, for all the world to see.
Good night.
Ronnie.
For 2005-2006, Ericy is paying a $14 million per year penalty for 2G, making their phones/infrastructure more costly than NOK's.
They either have to quote higher bid prices, or take lower margins, which can't make Carl very happy.
If Ericy signed-up for 3G, that penalty would increase, putting them at an even greater disavantage.
Any wonder they're holding out on 3G? And probably with the agreement of IDCC.
DR. I'm curious as to why you'd say that.
Am I not correct that IDCC has some 250 3G patents?
Does challenging 18 mean the remaining 232, together with each and every claim, can also be circumvented by merely filing a lawsuit?
Nokia's seemingly desperate actions are giving off a distinct POLITICAL odor, as we all focus on the legal questions.
But as Chief Snake, it's Jorma's solemn responsibility to grapple with the potential consequences of an adverse arbitration decision.
After all, the outcome could determine whether Nokia continues as one of Wall Street's darlings, and whether its stock option/compensation plans continue to go up in smoke.
So please consider the following, which may weigh just as heavily as the legal angles:
1. It's market share is in reverse/stagnant, instead of heading for NOK's stated target of 40%.
2. Even SAM outdid NOK in one of the latest sales reports.
3. Many of its executive stock options are under water.
4. The recent resignations of top execs didn't help NOK's image as the best and biggest in the business.
5. Although NOK demanded arbitration, IDCC has little to lose monetarily. On the other hand, NOK's potential liability could be several hundred million, causing a considerable dent in the cash register, as well as its Big Dog reputation.
At the moment, NOK's lawyers appear to be laying the groundwork for an appeal, or for negotiating leverage, or both.
But the nagging, non-legal-question has been asked many times before:
Can Jorma really afford to let a a three-man arbitration panel decide his fate, and that of his company, which employs 51,000 people around the world?
I think not. I would not.
Thanks. Can't pull it up.
JK. Can you clear up the mystery?
Where does it say that the Final Hearings will start on January 17?
PACER #15 says nothing, on the surface.
Good question.
Normally, the boss would put out the word.
Sure would have saved us a few bucks.
Whether it's Monday or Tuesday, is no biggee.
If the PACER filings are correct, this hearing has been going for at least 24 days, as of today.
Could be over by the end of next week.
Oso. Interesting PACER entry.
NOK tried to get the court to order Ericy to appear at the Arb. hearing.
What date did they want them to appear?
December 22, 2004.
This thing's been going on right under our noses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
12/20/2004 23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn :
Telephone Conference held on Petitioner's Motion (Nokie's motion) to Enforce Arbitral Subpoena.
The Court denied motion insofar as it requested the Court to require Ericsson to appear at an arbitration hearing on 12/22/04.
The Court deferred ruling on Petitioner's Motion in all other respects. (Court Reporter Sue Engledow.) (jyg, ) (Entered
Thank you, SJR.
I thought I was going cookoo.
MSCHERE.
Until I see you post it in black and white, I'm not buying it.
Am I the only one who has doubts about this?
Please try again, please.
Did the UK court invalidate certain 3G patents owned by IDCC?
Where is the official word?
MSCHERE.
I always come to you when I'm looking for facts, backed up by something official.
But I'll be damned if I can find anything about the UK invalidating certain 3G patents owned by IDCC.
My apologies if I missed a post.
Dave.
Did IDCC actually lose a patent infringement suit in the UK?
Didn't have time to read it carefully, in all the rush. But it kinda looked like they couldn't convince the court to deny access to information requested by NOK.
Ams.
Good ole' Lucky.
He always seems to be standing in crowd, when the firemen are trying to put out the fire. LOL.
SJR, or anyone.
If NOK is looking for a declaratory judgment for noninfringement (of patents), when did IDCC make this accusation?
Sounds like some food fights have been going on that haven't been made public.
JK.
We should give Howard and the boyz a little time to work on a response, whether it's a letter to shareholders, or a counter-suit.
NOK may be trying to throw sand in IDCC's 3G gears, because Jorma just can't stand the thought of paying for both 2G and 3G, and told his guys to shoot now, and ask questions later.
Actually, the damage has not been too bad so far. Probably because they're not suing for money.
Chartex.
"More than a normal number of cars on Sunday".
If they had Texas license plates, we won't have to wait long for IDCC's counter-suit.
Loop.
What say you to Gio's post about the Arb. rules regarding the timing guidelines for their decision?
A little help please.
TASER's two darts need to hit the target in order to be effective.
STIY's need two out of our darts.
Does LENF's need one?
TIA.
Yeah. We were saying that five years ago, too.
Loop.
Hard to swallow.
You wouldn't have to be brilliant to advise Howard that making such an announcement, without NOK's knowledge, would undoubtedly send The Snake to the moon.
Remember, he's the one who's always fielding questions to other execs, because he's afraid of what they'll say.
Given Howard's background with the SEC, he either had ape $hit for breakfast, or temporarily lost his senses.
I find it hard to believe that they held the CC without first discussing it with NOK.
Loop. One wonders why Rip didn't say that at the infamous CC.
They must have known at that time that NOK didn't view it the same way.