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.
Spider. It's the little things, right?
Like those 1,000 little patents in 3G, with more coming all the time, and our 'patent company' can't even give us, and the investment community, a periodic update.
Luckily, we have DR to keep us informed.
Damn. Do you mean I wasted that terrific joke on a non-lawyer?
Sorry.
We have Rip, Guy Hicks, the new Director of Communications, Janet Point, and Janet's assistant, all with PR responsibilities.
Unfortunately, no one believes the China thing rates a press release.
And we all know he's been against insider selling, often criticizing those who do.
Of course, Rip has often said the stock will be in the $40-$50 range by year end.
And the sad part is, we haven't been right yet.
JKJ. Another take. She knew the exhibits would come by the truckload:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each party...at least one attorney...who has authority to facilitate the admission of evidence and reduce the time and expenses of trial.
Mschere. I like this part:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It's too early to say what possible changes there are," Treschow told analysts.....
More than one person has recently been told by Guy Hicks that mediation is over, but the parties are still talking. Hicks would not elaborate, which makes it doubly confusing.
This does not mean that mediation failed, or that settlement is at hand.
If you can get more out of Hicks, be my guest.
Even though KOP is indicating that mediation is over, a report on settlement negotiations is still part of the pre-trial order.
Judge Lynn got two such reports with Harris. The last one was filed on January 28, three months after the verdict on October 29.
To make this perfectly clear:
Mediation is over, but the parties are still talking, according to KOP.
There has been no bill submitted by Madam Abrams, according to PACER.
KOP has made no announcement of termination, even though it appears they would be required to do so.
Mediation is part of the pre-trial order.
If you understand this, please blow you horn.
Welcome aboard the Good Ship Ericsson, Mr. Svanberg.
If you don't already know, we're all about rough seas, torpedos, and faltering operations.
We've been handling the rough seas with a zig-zag approach for 18 years, so don't get the urge to knock it. You weren't around during WW II, but zig-zaggging is a proven military strategy for avoiding torpedos. There are two coming at us at the moment. But you won't have to bother with them. If one explodes, you won't know what hit you.
The gentleman standing next to you is Marcus Wallenberg. He's the vice-chairman of the board, and our lead, torpedo expert. He and his family own 40% of this barge. And his friends own another 40%, just so you know which side your toast is buttered on.
You've already met Mike. He's also part of the clean-up squad, from ElectroLux, as you know.
So, both of you. Get out there now, and do something about those operations. Turn on the ole' vac, and let the fur fly.
Ooops. There's another call from that damned Standard and Poors. Gotta run.
Now, we're down to the bottom line:
All the talk about compensation, options, and governance, pale when compared to the prospect of big dogs "getting the finger, and taking a hike."
We're nearing the end. Let's hope they keep their hands in their pockets.
For the same reason you and I bought.
You can bet that most know the overhang. And their patience is only everlasting if the company produces within a reasonable timeframe.
So. The only material disagreement is how you skin the cat?
During the past several years, I've worn my fingers to the bone, reviewing comparable pay plans/options with companies similar in size to IDCC. Every comparison shows IDCC is so far out of line, it's an absolute joke.
So how do you correct the problems, get appropriate represention on the BOD, and the rest? Answer: YOU DON'T. Unless you have the backing of the Heartlands/Barclays of the world.
Not trying to put you on the spot. But let's say you felt just as passionately about the problems as Ronnie (forget the margin crap). Would you throw your only chance to right the ship out the window? And if you would, what would you suggest?
Danny. I must be missing something.
As you know, the California Teachers fund makes a career out of meeting with companies in which they hold large stakes. And most of those meetings involve questions regarding governance, makeup of the BOD, and compensation.
We all know that KOP has met with analysts, trying to get coverage. But all they get, IMO, is public information concerning patents, partnerships, and the potential for 3G.
But the "game" may now be entering a different phase.
Last year, some were trying to get support to stop the huge options awards, and other excesses, by mounting an attack on KOP executives at the ASM.
But without the support of shareholders like Heartland, et. al., those efforts would have fallen on deaf ears.
Depending on what happens between now and the next ASM, we could be looking at a totally different reception. And Harry knows it.
I don't recall that Heartland, et. al. wanted Harry to violate FD.
I'll have to re-read the post. But the main theme, as I recall, was governance, communications, compensation, etc.
Others have met with the top dogs at IDCC, and came away with nothing of a confidential or FD nature.
Well, look who the dog dragged in.
The only thing that would please me more than a food fight in KOP, would be a wing-ding in Vegas.
Damn. Not knowing which direction to go, I can't use my Northwest Perks.
Better start cranking up the Jag.
Let's get something straight Tecee, before you blow another gasket.
I was not involved. But I would have joined the crowd if invited.
And I would have told you like a 'man'. A three letter word, to put with your four letter ones.
Why argue about who'se the biggest a$$hole. You win.
Would that I were. Sadly, I'm not.
And you just put your big foot in your mouth.
Temper, temper, ma boy.
You know not what you're talking about.
Now for the question. (Why lawyers hate message boards. LOL):
Do you think IDCC has a shot at re-litigating the '863 patent if they go to trial with Ericy?
So there you are IQ.
First, a little joke to get your legal blood flowing:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A man walks into a bar. He sees a good looking, smartly dressed woman sitting on a bar stool. He walks up behind her and says, "Hi there. How's it going?"
Having already had a few drinks, she turns around, faces him, looks him straight in the eye and says, "Listen! I'll screw anybody, any time, anywhere, your place, my place, it doesn't matter."
He says, "No kidding. I'm a lawyer too! What firm are you with?"
FYI, Harris demanded trial on November 27, 2001.
On January 31, 2002, Judge Lynn set a date of May 31.
Less than 30 days later, on February 25, she announced a possible "conflict" with the proposed date.
On May 31, she set a new trial date of October 7, and it ended on October 29.
Ericy bought 9 months from the date of Harris's original demand, but paid dearly.
Just a little historical nonsense. But it's interesting that, whether true or not, she published a reason for the delay.
That one really shocked you, eh Tecee?
Some of us sit here and bitch. Some sit in stupor. Others take the bull by the horns. And the remainder criticize what the bullriders do.
You know full well that getting Colorado and Barclays to agree that something needs fixing, must have been a herculean task. Try it, and you'll fall flat on you a$$. (Don't take that personally, so would I).
In a way, it's like telling them their analysts have been totally asleep at the switch. I can see the bosses now, demanding answers from their hot shot MBA's. "Did you know this, John? If not, why not?" "What the hell do you guys do all day?"
Thank the Lord for inventing Bulls and Horns.
Seems like Harry had a problem.
But it was not IDCC's policy of not meeting with individual shareholders, I'm thinkin'.
More probably, he found himself in a no-win situation.
If he met with the Big Boys and wouldn't/couldn't meet their reasonable demands for governance, payroll, etc., they'd place a few sell orders that would still be ricocheting on the Streets of Wall. (Others have done the same, as we know).
On the way to the bathroom, he thought-up the "we won't meet with individuals" policy, and lived to fight another day.
He's got until June to "wink" his way out of this latest fiasco.
I think we all understand the restrictions on information that go along with litigation, even though IDCC and Ericy requested that Judge Sanders impose the gag order.
As for the rest, Ronnie Marchman said it all, except this:
When I left Chrysler, the CFO was making about $300,000 a year. This, for a worldwide company who, at the time, had sales of over $30 billion.
To the chagrin of many shareholders, IDCC's CFO is making $500,000 which, as I recall, is the same as Dupont's. The fact that they have chosen to "blank out" his salary in their "Profile" page, is no coincidence.
Sorry Mschere. Sounds like a total cop-out to me.
IDCC is not a restaurant, even though the operators believe they can dish out whatever they want, and we'll have to eat it, or move on.
"Accountability" is not a four letter word.
Communicating with shareholders does not "enhance credibility", as Howard would have us believe.
Thanks Red. With employees having to pay "excess" interest, along with the shortfall in price, there'll be some mighty unhappy Swedes marching around headquarters in June.
Mschere. I haven't been able to locate information concerning outstanding convertibles to employees.
Do you know how much we're talking about?
During a quick review of the Rights Prospectus, it looks like June might be cash-crunch time for Ericy, depending upon their convertible obligations, and further downgrades.
Their interests costs have already been affected by at least 6 downgrades by ratings agencies, and their commercial paper access appears to have been restricted.
Well now, Jim. That's a novel reply. But I have to admit, we missed the WW Filing.
Harry's gift was "restricted" shares.
He may not be able to sell them to pay the taxes.
I believe that paying taxes is part of another executive perk.
Duke. He's in the Dominican Republic all week. You can never find a cop when you need one.
Ams. Our people are threatening nothing less than Class Action.
We called Fulbright and Jaworski. But they say they're busy at the moment.
Jim. We, on Yahoo, have called ouselves the "Coffee Shop" for the past few years.
Why are you infringing on our good name?
We must admit, Loch, that must have been a super jury, replete with patent attornies and telecom engineers.
It took Ericy 8 years from the date IDCC started talking to them about licensing, to finally admit the patents were essential, after trying every which-way to avoid it.
Then, in 17 days, they put out IDCC lights and, in effect, told Ericy and the rest of the world that they didn't know beans about patents.
So, every one of Ericy's experts said IDCC's patent were essential (valid), the Swedish Telephone Company agreed, the American and German patent offices agreed.
But they were overruled by a U.S. jury who couldn't even fill out a verdict form properly.
JKJ. Did you see my earlier request?
Kevin. You guys are wearing out my printer, overloading my storage space, and numbing my mind.
It's crystal clear that Ericy's motion for estoppel was denied by Judge Sanders.
But I'm not clear whether IDCC is now free to re-litigate the '863 patent in the Ericy case.
A little hep, please.
It be me.
DR. Another loose string I've been wondering about. Thanks for answering that bothersome question.