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.
O'Dog.
This is fast becoming hilarious.
If you own essential patents but don't declare them, and sue an infringer, a court could find you guilty of fraud.
If you own essential patents and declare them, Nokia could sue you for making false claims, etc.
Guess I'd better end this quest to understand when a patent is a patent.
Thanks for the info.
O'Dog/Loop.
I still have one question:
Example:
1. You decide to become a manufacturer of cell phones, and use 50 patents from various inventors.
2. Two patents are "declared" essential, so you license them.
3. The remaining 48 are owned by other inventors, who did not declare essentiality. But, they are great patents and, taken together, they make your phone work to its optimum, and you take 25% of the market.
So, why didn't you license the other 48? Your engineers said you might be able to work around them. But this could take months of trial and error, and millions in R&D expense, and there wouild still be no guarantee of success.
And besides, you wanted to get to market. So you deliberately stole the ideas of others, and infringed 48 patents.
My point is: Simply telling a judge you can do a "work-around", doesn't mean you can. But, it's tacit admission that you're a thief.
And failing to declare essentiality doesn't make a patent non-essential.
So. In a nutshell, what the hell is the judge deciding in the U.K.?
Jim.
I have nothing but respect for O'Dog's opinions.
And if he can explain this in "dummy" fashion, he will be my hero for 2006.
Am I the only one who would be eternally grateful if someone would explain the English "leaning" in english?
Reminder:
Nokia complained that the arbitration panel also erred in awarding ADDITIONAL interest (after their decision, I believe), as well as taking away cash discounts for Period II.
But the lost discount was not included in the $250 million, which was net of discounts.
Add a few bucks for attorney fees and costs, and you get very close to Mschere's number, if not higher.
And, as each month passes, the sheckles continue to grow.
So. Nokia is requesting two rulings:
1. Whether the three patents in question are valid.
2. Whether the patents are essential to meet ETSI GSM standard.
Since Nokia (virtually) admits to using the patents, and since it has a convenience license to use them, your point about going thru the back door for information becomes more clear.
But what's missing in this lawsuit?
Answer: A claim by IDCC that Nokia is infringing.
And from across the ocean comes the echo, "So, what are you doing in my courtoom?"
Don't know about the date of the suit, but the first date set for trial was July 2005.
O.T. Gamco.
I'm here to confirm that everything they say about trust bankers and lawyers is not true.
Some of it is false. LOL.
Thanks Gamco.
Now I know who my friends are.
BTW, are you a lawyer?
It's kinda like giving Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize.
Charlie.
Why don't I get a "good one"?
"Besides who cares about an English Court that spells LICENSE as LICENCE."
So. You're saying this is really not a patent suit, but more like a spelling bee?
Let's hope Pumpee has forgotten how to spell Lexington and Concord.
So. If the good Judge Pumfrey is not ruling on validity, and has not retained a special master, how will he determine that the patents are essential?
Were Alcatel and Lucent in talks when they settled the patent suit?
Could account for the language used in the CC.
Dave.
I try not to bother her, unless there's an obvious question.
As you know, the 2G suit is awaiting a ruling, and the 3G suit just started.
Is there something you wanted to know?
Dave.
Although the mannies may have many buy and sell orders, it's my understanding that they are required to post their highest "Ask" and "Bid".
The other orders are not seen on Level II until they come to the surface.
I believe you can see these other orders on Level III, but few people have this service.
Scusa.
I keep thinking Euros when I see that symbol.
Apologies to our friends in Jolly Old.
About $66.00.
I just spoke to Janet. But since my questions were about the recent flurry of litigation by IDCC, she was not permitted to shed much light on subject.
She did say, however, that the arbitration filing was designed to speed up the entire process, rather than waiting till the appeals court makes its ruling. i.e., if IDCC already has the answers it is seeking from the ICC, this may coicide with the approximate timing of a ruling from the appeals court.
Unfortunately, she could not tell me whether the recent restraining order, and the lawsuit filed on March 24 against Nokia (which mentions "irreparable damages"), is one lawsuit or two. This leads me to believe that there are two separate suits, and at least one of them may have a sharp point on it.
I left the conversation with the feeling that the lawyers and Mr. Bill have decided that turnabout is fairplay when it comes to litigation. These are certainly not Janet's words, but IDCC may now be on a legal crusade to do everything possible to bring the Nokia mess to the fastest conclusion possible.
O'Dog.
Interesting stuff.
Far more so than using our own imaginations.
"Irreparable" is a "big" word in law. But do you believe this lawsuit involves new issues, other than the arbitration question?
Good evening, Charles.
Looks like we've got a new ballgame.
Dispute Resolution still ongoing; new arbitration with Nokia, but this time requested by IDCC; new lawsuit by IDCC in NY, just to keep Nokia's boyz' meter running.
Dave.
Sounds silly, but do you believe as I, that the lawsuit was filed by IDCC against Nokia in NY?
I believe I am incorrect about the lawsuit being filed in the U.K.
See Dan's link #4, which shows that the case has been given a number (#06cv2333), and has been reassigned to Judge Daniels.
Now that should perk up everyone's ears.
Dave.
Confusion reigns.
How do you keep a U.K. judge from seeing a lawsuit filed in the U.K.?
I'm sure you noticed, they want everything under seal, including the lawsuit.
Dave.
Did you read the part about the lawsuit with IDCC as plaintiff, and Nokia as defendant, dated March 24?
It's part of the restraining order.
Dan.
In addition, it looks like IDCC filed suit against Nokia in the U.K., on March 24, 2006.
Art.
Tomorrow's market action will be another test for IDCC.
I'm surprised we didn't see some selling this afternoon, since the impression might be that "the big one" is coming later rather than sooner.
A ray of hope:
"The parties continue to pursue a mutually agreeable resolution of this dispute.
Absent such resolution, InterDigital will continue to seek final resolution of the dispute through the initiated arbitration
AND OTHER LEGAL PROCESSES."
Mschere.
The only thing I can think of is,
The CAMP procedure is working.
The mediator advised both parties that Nokia's appeal will likely be denied, and the case will be accelerated.
IDCC will be advised to go back to the ICC to finalize the award, or for an order that can be enforced in the U.S. courts.
Whatever, this is one of the most confusing moves in many moons.
The call is one thing.
The reason IDCC back-peddled to the ICC, rather than using the courts to order Nokia to produce sales figures and pay the amount owed, is quite another.
We may find out the reason. But in the meantime, no one's coming up with a scenario that holds much water.
Jim. Next time I email Sam, I'll ask.
I don't think I'm getting the right scoop from you guys. LOL.
And, like the lawyer who defends himself and has a fool for a client, this judge is his own special master.
But hey! He probably has a PHD in wireless engineering.
Finally. An explanation that makes sense. LOL.
And if you don't wear your robe, it would seem to mean that the public is not invited.
If it also said "unwigged", we would know for sure.
What does "unrobed" mean?
TIA
Why would IDCC go to arbitration, and take two years or more to get information that a judge can order in a split second?
You might want to watch 60 minutes tonight.
Exclusive: 60 Minutes*3-26-06
by: goodbuddy4863 (M/MICH.) 03/25/06 09:57 pm
Msg: 255952 of 255952
A Must see:
Naked Shorting hits 60 Minutes, Congress to Hold Hearings on Hedge Funds, and Unbiased Journalism? – March 24, 2006
David Patch
Fifteen Minutes of What NBC’s Dateline left in the Cutting Room Floor
To think, it has now been an eternity since NBC’s Dateline chocked on their exclusive story regarding a Wall Street scandal they once considered calling “Financial Terrorism in the US.” The reported multi-part series on illegal shorting and securities fraud that Dateline spent better than a year preparing for was reduced to a 15-minute fluff piece that was hardly worth the effort. Many believe the trimming down stemmed from self-preservation on behalf of NBC parent General Electric (NYSE: GE) fearing Wall Street retaliation.
That story of financial terrorism will reportedly unfold before your eyes but this time through a direct competitor to NBC. CBS’ 60 Minutes will air this Sunday March 26 with their own version of what lies in hiding within our securities markets. The stories the financial press have so far shied away from coverage on or covered from a singular side.
The 60 Minutes storyline:
BETTING ON A FALL – Investment pools for the very rich are known as hedge funds. One of the major ones is being accused of spreading negative information about a major company and then betting on its falling stock price. Lesley Stahl reports. Janet Klein is the producer.
This is must see TV (isn’t that an NBC line) for anybody that doubts the reality of market abuses leveraged off unscrupulous Hedge Funds willing to go to great lengths to turn a profit.
Recall earlier this month the SEC fined Bear Stearns $250 Million for aiding Hedge Funds (prime brokerage customers) in illegal trading strategies. Excerpts from the SEC Complaint include:
Linda Chatman Thomsen, SEC Enforcement Division Director, said, "For years, Bear Stearns helped favored hedge fund customers evade the systems and rules designed to protect long-term mutual fund investors from the harm of market timing and late trading.”
“On the clearing side, BSSC gave introducing brokers and prime brokerage customers with mutual fund trading business direct access to its mutual fund order entry system. This system permitted users to enter orders until 5:45 p.m. and processed all trades, regardless of when they were actually received, as if they had been received before 4:00 p.m.”
O'Dog.
Now you're talkin'.
Thanks. 50/50 chance ain't bad.
Jimmy.
Thanks for the confirmation.
But clearly, this is not a routine case, and is probably not just about the 2G arbitration.
IDCC will not likely make concessions unless it means the end of Delaware and the two U.K. lawsuits, as well as the arbitration.
Nokia is just as likely to make a big deal out of including everything, even if the other cases are weak, and not likely to favor Nokia.
If he fails to move the parties, despite concessions by IDCC, let's hope he's pi$$ed enough to ask for immediate acceleration of the case.
Red.
OK, I see what you mean.
I don't think Merritt will flinch if asked for reasonable concessions.
This appeal is like a bowling ball that could knock over a lot of other pins.