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.
DR. Just trying to recall requirements from my working days.
Our lawyers were always concerned that such agreements eventually (once a year, as I recall) had to be filed with the SEC.
Have to agree, however, that it seems more than coincidental that these two agreements (the only REALLY big ones), are being made public (at this time).
I don't know where you came from, but I know where you're going.
Adios.
Don't all agreements, of a material nature, have to be filed with the SEC?
Damn!!!!!! Munis must be doing better than I thought. Why, oh why did I hold onto IDCC, which only went up 125% since August.
Thanks. Much ado about nothing.
Greed. Sorry. This is not an update. You might recall that a coordinator in Dallas told me they don't give out much information concerning upcoming trials.
The new system has such information. But doesn't show when more "action" is scheduled.
My "May 15" search showed Ericy/IDCC. And when I saw the number of lawyers involved, it was somewhat of a shock.
On one line, you see (no aty) for Ericsson-GE Mobile Communications.
Further down, you will see an attorney's name for E-GE-M.
Red. Means nothing, other than who the players are on May 15.
I was just surfing the new PACER site, and brought up all cases in Dallas between now and May 15.
Judge Lynn's name didn't appear on very many.
That's what I thought too. But one seems to be contradicted by another, in some cases.
Better get up early on May 15, if you want a seat at the big doins'.
PACER shows Judge Lynn might not even have enough room for the lawyers:
(I don't understand the notation "(no aty)", which appears several times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3:93-cv-01809 Ericsson Radio, et al v. Interdigital Cmncs, et al
J Patrick Heptig and Sharon A Israel and Susan Elizabeth Powley and T Gordon White representing Ericsson Radio Systems, Inc. (Plaintiff)
J Patrick Heptig and Mike McKool Jr and Robert A Samra and Sharon A Israel and Susan Elizabeth Powley and T Gordon White representing Ericsson-GE Mobile Communications, Inc. (Plaintiff) (no aty) representing Interdigital Technology Corporation (Consol Plaintiff)
D Dudley Oldham and Dan Duncan Davison and Linda L Addison and Robert S Harrell and Steven Kreiss representing Interdigital Communications Corporation (Defendant)
(no aty) representing Ericsson-GE Mobile Communications, Inc. (Consol Defendant)
Randall Harrison Nunn representing Northern Telecom Inc (Movant)
Gerald B Halt Jr representing Volpe & Koenig PC (Movant)
Bruce Steven Sostek representing Interdigital Communications Corporation (ThirdParty Defendant)
Thomas B Newell representing Ericsson-GE Mobile Communications, Inc. (Counter Claimant)
(no aty) representing Interdigital Technology Corporation (Counter Defendant)
PRO SE Tom Arnold (Provider)
PRO SE Hesha Abrams (Provider)
John T Kotelly representing Interdigital Technology Corporation (Counter Claimant)
(no aty) representing Ericsson-GE Mobile Communications, Inc. (Counter Defendant)
Jerry R Selinger and Mike McKool Jr representing Ericsson Radio Systems, Inc. (ThirdParty Plaintiff)
(no aty) representing Interdigital Technology Corporation (ThirdParty Defendant)
Jerry R Selinger representing Ericsson-GE Mobile Communications, Inc. (ThirdParty Plaintiff)
(no aty) representing Ericsson Radio Systems, Inc. (Counter Defendant)
It may also prove that Ericy is a welcher, as well as a thief.
One of the worst of all penalties: Paying a supplier when you do not meet a production commitment.
This little joke is brought to you by a poster from the Ericy message board:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Re: more patents !! foot note
by: sitrap1 02/20/03 12:49 pm
Msg: 120042 of 120043
just want to add a reminder to WHY i track the patents and why its important ..<since Jan they have now added over 360>
"If a particular company tries to hinder Ericsson's operations or shut us out of a standard by holding on to a patent, it's imperative that we have the ability to respond with similar tactics. A judicial process then becomes pointless for the parties involved. The more valuable the patent, the better the negotiating position."
Göran Nordlundh likens this patent game to the balance of power during the cold war where both parties had the most to gain from constructive negotiations. Most often, negotiations over large,general patent portfolios lead to an exchange of licenses that both parties can freely make use of, so-called cross-licensure. Otherwise, licenses for specific patents are bought and sold like any other trade goods.
Since patents protect against competitors, Ericsson primarily seeks patents in those countries where competing firms have their manufacturing. As a result, most of Ericsson's patent applications are in the U.S., Europe and Japan. The patent market is large, and there are, in fact, companies who do nothing but buy and sell patents rather than manufacture products.
"Such a shortsighted way of thinking does not correspond to our view on patents. Our basic philosophy is that patents should primarily serve to protect the results of our research and development, so that we can deliver leading edge products which are our biggest
source of income."
"We do, however, also believe in supporting open standards and low royalties in order to increase the spread of technology. Everyone benefits from a rapidly expanding market," says Göran Nordlundh.
Ericsson is also very active in various standardization organizations such as UMTS-IPR, ITU and ETSI, in order to be in a position to encourage more openness in the industry. Over the years, Ericsson has been successful in working in a way that has created new, open standards that are in line with Ericsson's technology.
Unlike many other companies, patent issues at Ericsson are handled by the Marketing and Strategic Business Planning corporate functions.More commonplace is to see companies divide the task up between their technical and legal departments.
Strategic market tool
"This shows our view of patent issues - that they are merely a strategic marketing tool. By adopting such an organizational structure, it also makes it easier for us to raise patent awareness within the company. The majority of patent work occurs out in the line organization as a natural part of our research and product development," says Göran Nordlundh.
In every business segment, including applied research, there are patent representatives available to support their unit's patent operations and to ensure that there is an active patent program.
Basis from everyday work
Göran Nordlundh maintains that it is still everyday work that forms the basis for Ericsson's successful patent strategy and the primary reason that Ericsson's patent applications have increased both in quantity and quality in recent years
Someone said Louie will be on CNBC on March 5.
A little email about his new holdings in IDCC on March 4, might not hoit.
Worth repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Page F=3...NOTE #27..Page #44..Provision for Intellectual property rights..
"We have entered into several license agreements with other companies relating to essential patents and other patents."
Amen.
That's what I wanted to hear!!!!!!!!!!
Shades of Ericy, when they first alerted the public that they might have some patent infringement problems, and put a few bucks in the kitty.
There's little point in sparring with you, Tecee.
But just for fun, show me my post where I called Howard and Harry thieves and felons.
Thanks for the civil response.
There have not been many here today.
There are strong feelings on both sides. But those who continually "belittle" others, should take a closer look at the word.
Excellent news. I take it NOK did not make the same "patent" comment in prior reports???????
You've got a problem with margin. Others don't.
You've got a problem with shareholder activism. Others don't.
You think paying directors in seven figures is OK. Others don't.
Why continue? It's all been said.
But how that relects on the character of those who disagree with you sure beats me.
It amazes me how casually you people play with the reputations of others.
Why not tell the truth? Or didn't that cross your mind?
IDCC at 14.05.
PWC/Ericy should provide a little excitement between now and May 15, so we don't fall asleep at our computers.
And if Judge Lynn doesn't have a pot full of trials, it would be nice if she found time to finish Harris.
Yes, I know. I thought you might be pointing something out for YE 2002, given the Harris situation.
Aren't those provisions for the year ending 2001?
I thought you'd like that.
Kevin. I just talked to our friend in Dallas.
Judge Lynn is out for a day or so and, at the moment, there are no trials scheduled for the next two weeks.
The court maintains a confidential list of coming trials, with the names of the involved parties. But it does not publish the list, and will not answer questions from outsiders, other than reveal how many trials are scheduled.
There are no PACER files for Harris or IDCC that have not been made public.
As expected, she knew of no reason for the trial delay.
My two cents:
Although they will bring Svanberg into the loop, the Wallenbergs will decide their own fate. They would not let a locksmith, no matter how picky, bet the ranch on a Texas jury, unless they were of the same mindset.
Ericy could threaten bankruptcy if a jury finds they willfully infringed, and Judge Lynn upholds the verdict. However, a debt incurred through fraud is not dischargeable in bankruptcy in the U.S. And since the Swedes are a little older than we are, they closed that loophole long ago, IMO.
"Yes", to this one:
Given what we now know, wouldn't it seem that ERICY's argument that they would prevail doesn't seem sustainable.
Red. From Brokentrade's post on RB on October 15, 2002:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Proving Patent Infringement Damages
R. Scott Tewes
Michael K. Dixon
National CLE Conference: Intellectual Property Law, January 10-15, 2000
3. Infringer's Ability to Pay Enhanced Damages
Because of the punitive nature of an award of increased damages, a court can consider the financial condition of a willful infringer when determining the extent of any increase. 244.
The increase in damages should not unduly prejudice the infringer's non-infringing business.245 However, the stronger an infringer is financially, the more the court will increase damages to more effectively punish the willful infringer.
Loop. I wasn't aware that putting someone out of business could affect the judge's decision.
I have, however, read that putting an entire company out of business, when major divisions, for example, have nothing to do with another division's case, should not be done.
Since Ericy is virtually all telecom, it would be unfair to IDCC and Harris to reduce a verdict. Especially when the verdict is wilful.
Structured settlements would seem to be in order, before crying bankruptcy.
What say you?
7:26AM Motorola plans to use Java and Linux in handset - FT (MOT) 8.00: The Financial Times reports that MOT will set the stage today for a battle over operating systems when it announces plans to launch the first handset built around Java technology and Linux software; the endorsement of Linux will be a blow to providers of proprietary software such as QCOM as well as to MSFT, which has been pushing its own operating system.
Now wouldn't that be just duckie?
My friends might even start calling again.
So much for declaring a dividend, and buyback.
A little more news about IDCC/TSDCDMA wouldn't hurt.
Mighty Q is down 2.66 at 33.90. No news on their site.
Carl Svanberg is surrounded, but he'll have a hard time circling the wagons:
SNE, which was supposed to make a profit from the start, may need another year or more to get into the black (if ever), and the latest infusion of cash may not be the last.
Ericy continues to founder, with more layoffs now (and probably more in the immediate future), generating continued restructuring charges.
Harris has already taken a chunk out of Ericy's thin hide, assuming the judge affirms the jury's verdict.
And IDCC is nipping at their heels.
Can the rating agencies be far behind?
They have a calendar fiscal.
Greed. The sure took a good look!!!!!!!!
The "Q3" was over many moons ago.
As these guys sharp, or what??????????
A little refresher from Ghors post #8241, citing just the pertinent parts:
A district court "may not disregard a jury finding of willful, or make contrary findings...in the face of such a finding, a sound bases has to be set forth by the distict court if it refuses to increase the award."
"Federal Circuit has routinely upheld enhanced damage awards, predicated largely, if not entirely, on a jury finding of willfulness."
"In fact, the Court has expressly held that an act of willful infringement, standing alone, satisfies the culpability requirement, sufficient to warrant an enhancement of damages".
The jury apparently awarded $61 million, based on a reasonable royalty rate of 1.75%. If the judge compares this rate to what QCOM and others have charged, she might wonder why Harris didn't ask for more.