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.
It seems obvious from the QCOM newswire that Nokia has made substantial progress by at least getting within field goal distance toward resolution of their legal battles with both QCOM and IDCC. To me, it further lends credibility to what IDCC communicated instead through an 8K.
I further think the timeframe communicated by QCOM (but IDCC communicated no timeframe) says that without continuing to apply pressure on the legal front there will be no near-term resolution.
For IDCC, that pressure doesn't have to be the delayed ITC hearings, as Nokia I'm sure would like to put an end to the challenges against their patents in the UK, which was a required response to their attack on the essentiality of our own.
I was surprised to read related to the UK cases the judge still has to say whether or not this case can go forward challenging Nokia's patent essentiality, when it was Nokia that has already set the legal precedent and we publicly filed it as a cross-action related to their own actions. It seems that for a judge to not allow it to go forward would be denying an equal and opposite legal action that was already granted to Nokia. I don't see how this could even be in question? Any thoughts by the legal eagles?
P.S. It sounds like they are rolling in so much money that they put you on their payroll too.... Please give it a break.
Romulus, I hesitantly reply to you because I'll draw out yet another post with your "this isn't working" mantra
You are making a mountain out of a molehill, creating an emergency where there is not one, and Nokia's recent lucky break is but one skirmish in a larger war that we are fairing quite well in...lighten up - it's not so bad as you say.
By the way - IDCCs action of taking their complaint to the ITC - IS A NEW APPROACH, AND A FAST ONE COMPARATIVE TO ANY OTHER VENU AND WITH HIGH STAKES CONSEQUENCES FOR SAMSUNG AND NOKIA!!!! NEITHER OF THEM WANT TO GO BEFORE THE ITC AND IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS TO ALL.
You are saying this isn't working, I say it's working just fine. IF IDCC wants to open up some new fronts to fire salvo's at Nokia fine, but announcing another buyback is not really a fresh idea.
If you ask me, the stallion Nokia is just trying to buck it's way out of a line where they know they will be gelded at the end of it. If they cannot buck out of line, they will put the horse they chose to go through the line with in front of them so they are the very last one to lose their balls. It's all about Nokia...bla bla bla they are all about themselves.
I wonder what kind of BS they fed to their competitor Samsung...
Yes, it was a simple agreement. You shut-up (Samsung), I'll talk and call all the shots (Nokia). I wonder how much Samsung really gained by the consolidation? A little more time will tell.
It reads like Samsung's opposition was written by Nokia. So I guess that means Samsung is still shell-shocked that Nokia is putting the screws to them and is probably speechless, as Nokia writes their replies and is coaching them to take one for the team!.
Gio, great news. On the edge of my seat regarding the direction things will go now. Point and counter-point has been made about whether the judge will split this or not. Glad to see the schedule came out today, so we may hear something tomorrow and who knows, maybe taking Samsung straight to the matt. In the big picture, the schedule seems pretty near-term to me. I can't see where the legal team is gonna lose too much traction over this schedule.
It will get really interesting if they split this and proceed against Samsung concurrently at the ITC.
btw, I am surprised you beat DMILLER in predicting low teens. He surely will not disagree with you because it might be mistaken for optimism
I'll accept that as good advice. I have seen some of IDCCs legal resolutions occur in the past where I though folks were in the know and acting on it prior to, and others where I feel it was kept completely under wraps till the announcement came. Some of that is obviously going to be determined by your opponent, and I don't trust our current ones, so I believe it is good advice.
You may be right on all of that regarding the manipulation and master plan of a suitor for IDCC, but they are in a strong cash position, and some of our licensees are performing very well so there could be upside surprises. Along with that, the new slimchip customer, and the fact that management stated they would have to keep a lid on some of the behind-the-scenes progress regarding the product side.
I think there are some possible upside surprises in 2008, and on any of them the shorts could quickly loose their grip and run for cover.
Here's to hoping you are wrong. ITC resolution with either Samsung or Nokia is going to break the backs of ALL the shorts, and if it stays on a near-term schedule I think it's folks taking their positions, and betting on further delay as can often be counted on with litigation.
I think because Nokia is an industry giant, and is still running w/a lucky break by hook or crook, alot of money is going to bet on Nokia making the most of this delay and chips are now placed by the shorts. As for Samsung - we may have a date certain schedule rolling forward with the ITC as early as next week that will put Nokia back in their own corner.
With IDCC also having IPR strength in the upcomming 802.21 standards, and being one of the unique strength plays in TD-SCDMA, I don't see all the doom and gloom - these two arenas will deliver surprises on the licensing side, IMO.
Anytime there could as easily be a surprise announcement of a Microsoft, Cisco, TXN, or Intel tie-up that will knock the ceiling off this stock. I hope we are not bought out, and get to witness the upside. Now those surprises could come on the licensing or the product side, or both.
In the big picture we are actually a forerunner in the race to prove out our IPR licensing strength for 3G. With both us and QCOM fighting the fight, and UK decisions coming down on our side, so to Nokia's dismay we are not going away and have no need to back down.
Thanks Whiz, you answered my question and I posted before reading this.
So in IDCC arguing that the CCA was wrong in not reveiwing and giving weight to the findings of the ALJ, if that is agreed upon then this doctrine of laches has already been presented in addition to collateral estoppel and could still be used as a basis to deny Nokia arbitration.
I hope I am correct on this point.
Gator, Great counterpoint as Loops was. I also am long this stock on nobody doubts it on this thread. I go through my emotional highs and lows as everybody else on this rollercoaster. I can't wait to see it turn into a rocket. I am certainly swayed by your point of view and am glad that you posted - glad that I stepped out of line just enough to draw you out of the lurking for your valid points. No harm intended.
Loophole, thank you for adding a counter-balance to my post that outweighs what I laid onto the scale. Sincerely. Thank You!
Better yet, how about stock options! That would actually put the lawyers on a time schedule A great idea - I vote yes for that.
The other thing you want to be able to maintain is anger from the ITC on the injustices going on with the verdicts coming down, but the anger and compassion will be less if it's based on our own laxity or poor representation.
Of course, I am a layman in these matters, so I defer to you and a bottle of Maalox if I was a lawyer, because I probably notice only a fraction of the things that you might feel are mistakes made along the way.
Even a good legal team is going to make them, but certainly a couple of comments like is hard to ingnore - and perhaps shouldn't be ignored by our chief legal counsel internally.
Loop, once again, the reply from 2 CCA really put the blame on IDCC for denying the stay. And based on this comment how material to you feel this miss is on the part of our own legal team...when it was a key determinant in granting a stay?
I certainly feel dissappointed with the CCAs decision, but it's difficult for the dissapointment to end there when in their response they say we laid down on the job in putting forward there would be only moderate irreparable harm.
How does our legal team bounce back from something like that, and what course of actions should be going on internally at IDCC when the court comes back with findings pointing back on us as the reason for the denial?
Revlis, this hits the nail on the head that makes you wonder if we lost simply because our lawyers did not see fit to prepare and put up a case for irreparable harm. That's not vigorously enforcing our IP if they did not step up to bat and shout about all these things.
To me, if that's all that was put forward we need to consider the quality of our legal team, and that it was the very basis for which we could have won with the CCA.
I have never seen this type of comment before about our own representation, almost explaining our loss as being our own fault by not seeing fit to state a case for irreparable harm.
This should not be overlooked internally by IDCC, and they need bring in some new guns with a reply like this coming forward.
And with the additional free options,shares, and RSUs given Harry over the years there would be a national chain of Harry's Cleaners on almost every streetcorner! Now that's a lost opportunity!
I don't give Nokia any credit whatsoever for seeing all or any of this in a crystal ball - they were throwing spaghetti and a noodle stuck. No more brains or forethought than that. No master plan but delay as much as we can. It had no form to it, and they are still making it up and running with it as they go along.
I'm still not sure as they do go along that this isn't just showing everyone their colors and it could come back to bite them. They are now taking a questionable win, and slinging mud before the ITC, now using it to interfere with Samsung based on "their positon" which I think is conteptable.
In my opinion they are just pissing off both the panel and the ALJ, so that if, and when they come back into their fold they are about as good as burnt toast.
Since the judge went against the panel in consolidating the case, their behavior wins further support for IDCC from the panel, and just rubs the judge Luckern the wrong way because they are making a mockery of his court and jurisdiction, and making his earlier decision, that was an appeasement to Nokia to spare them any prejudice that was a stretch anyway, appear in retrospect to be a foolish decision because they are now stomping all over him and his court.
Nicmar and Jimlur - you folks ok from the earthquake. I thought both of you lived over in God's country...
~ Wayne
Can Nokia be held in comtempt for interrupting, and impeding the legal matters pursuant to furthering the Samsung procedings. In my opinion, they should be charged with contempt for their actions.
I agree that if time is the only factor, we should give on that to get back to Delaware and have a shot better shot at a fair trial. It's hard not to feel like something smells rotten in Judge Batt's actions. If the CCA panel doesn't straighten it out, then I would be doing everything possible to get back to Delaware, where this should be defendable as teh appropriate jurisdiction for Nokia to present this as an affirmative defense in the first place.
The legal team for IDCC (unfortunate as it may be) may not even be aware of the defense. I wish Jimlur would forward some key e-mails on to the company - carrying the weight that he does it might put a joker back in IDCCs hand.
I'm in Silex, Missouri an hour NW of St. Louis. I was already working at my desk when I felt a sudden air pressure change in the room that sounded off all the windows and frames were creeking. I saw a tree stirring out the window from the porchlight, and since a front has been moving in with clouds but still warm, I ran outside thinking it was a tornado. But then everything got calm again. Realized at the coffee shop later it was an earthquake.
Loop, I have always wondered what constitutes irreparable harm? It seems that the legal system is blind to time being a recognized component because it's a given the wheels of justice turn slowly. Could you, or one of the other lawyers elaborate on what holds water and what does not with respect to arguing irreparable harm.
It seems that it is a no-brainer that we could make this argument and win that argument. I have seen no indication that we even pursued that course, or stated a case of irreparable harm - otherwise if we did, someone did a poor job of illustrating the scorched earth tactics that we have been vicimized by.
give it a few mins...DMILLER is dying to tell you that
Sloan6 - I agree with you, but feel everyone will wait on the briefing schedule before anyone makes another move.
Wonder how much of that volume spike was stop-loss orders being executed?
There are folks that are buying into this over-reaction. Perhaps I'm the only one, but seems like bargain shopping to me. I picked up some at 17.99.
My3sons, I wish I could say it was because Nokia wanted it that way, but secrecy has always been the IDCC mode of operande, much to the consternation of shareholders and wall street alike.
Loop, I had no idea this was a possible result. The best possibility I have heard yet - I would love to see it play out this way. Nice thoughts to start out the day with.
LTE IPR Agreement: What About All the Others?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/72312-lte-ipr-agreement-what-about-all-the-others?source=yahoo
By Dean Bulbey, of Seeking Alpha
Alcatel-Lucent (ALU), Ericsson (ERIC), NEC (NIPNY), NextWave Wireless (WAVE), Nokia (NOK), Nokia Siemens Networks and Sony Ericsson (SNE) have collectively agreed to a framework which aims to limit LTE (Long Term Evolution) patent royalties to single-digit % of handset sales value.
OK, that's clearly a worthy goal.... but it does rather beg the question of what % of the total necessary IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) they own between them. I'd guess it's a fairly good chunk, but there are a few obvious missing representatives, notably all the chipset & RF component suppliers like Qualcomm (QCOM), TI (TXN), Intel (INTC), Broadcom (BRCM) and so forth. Then there's the various IPR licencing specialists like Interdigital (IDCC), plus presumably various of the operators have invented some of the clever stuff in their own labs. Also missing from the roster are Motorola (MOT), Nortel (NT), Huawei and most of the other Asian vendors.
This is, however, definitely a good ploy in term of getting the Next Gen Mobile Network Alliance [NGMN] to further favour LTE over alternative candidate technologies. It will be interesting to see if the WiMAX community does something similar.... and if the WiMAX and LTE groups (which overlap quite a lot) can find it in their hearts to cross-licence things where necessary. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Of all that I read today, the best and most telling of everything came from Samsung's reply: "NO COMMENT". I couldn't sum it up in less than 3 words - "They are screwed!"
To me, if IDCC who has already referenced that paid-for report in their countersuit against Nokia can prove that was not an independent report - they have proved fraudulent and criminal activity, and it's mail fraud too!
Excuse me, the side-by-side is pleadings and arguments against QCOM up next to all their own contradictory pleadings. Now a 3rd column needs to be added that shows a collection of their posturing statements where they are rounding up a posse', electing themselves as sherrif, and claiming what they are gonna shove down the throats of inventors, and along in that column someone might include that paid-for "independent" study that they espoused all over the globe (Fraud - and internet mail fraud) to falsely build up the value of their own portfolio so that while they go around capping everyone elses rates, they were still gonna try and win the same old royalty game for themselves.
With Samsung guilty of slush funds, and bribery, and many criminal acts, and now in bed with Nokia - wouldn't it be great if a smoking gun came forward that could give rise to a valid RICO act claim that would drag them both onto the carpet.
To me, the side-by-side illustration of their public policy on FRAND versus their lawyer's arguments on FRAND running exactly contrary is a Fraud. They are Fraudulently representing a position to squash recognition of IPR across the industry, and paying lawyers to argue exactly the opposite in trying to squeeze royalties out of others.
It should be one or the other - isn't this Fraud, or following a doctrine of Unclean Hands?
They are on record publicly posturing one view, and legally arguing the opposing view to gain revenue from their own patents, plus they have hired a firm to write a supposedly independent study to deceive, and have referenced that study all over the internet and the globe to falsely build up the value of their own patent portfolio.
Somewhere in that behavior there seems to be a criminal act if not numerous ones.
In a jury trial, that side-by-side presentation should yield at least 4.5 percent for IDCCs contribution, and at least 6 percent for a pissed off jury if everyone on the jury has a lick of common sense.
Ok, because after her first showing, if it went to someone else I would actually feel more warm and fuzzy about the outcome.
Basic psychology says that once you buy a car and the color is Red, that from that point on your mind will begin to rationalize how nice the color Red is.
Based on this proven human behavioral pattern, I question that the process of Remanding something back is going to result in a different outcome, but would instead just motivate her to try very hard to justify her original ruling, and then pour us out.
That's why I regretted that whizzer's point about dismissing the case based on the pending SDNY case, because it would at least give her another way out that saves face - dismissal.
Let's face it, it it's remanded back she still has motivation to save face on her ruling from the bench.
OT: Yep! Back in my prime...but as Toby Kieth would say, "I can still do(hit) it once as good as I ever could!"
It's too bad my first name's Fred and born in 62.
whizzeresq,
What does it mean to remand it to her? Does it end up going back through her docket again for her to rule again under further scrutiny?
Thanks for helping out with the legal jargon...
Wanda002,
IDCC has been distancing itself from arbitration. I personally think that the termination of the 3G agreement with Nokia in their prior settlement was an effort to do this, and Nokia is trying to find ways to back-door arbitration back into the equation.
Many folks agree with you, but time is also a factor, and there is a time value of money. IDCC is in alot better position going into 3G to collect from everyone, and if you have been around awhile longer you might feel pretty good about their relative position of strength, there will come a when the delays being Nokia or Samsung closer to an actual trial that fear and dread will take hold of them that they will actually have to pay for what they have stolen. I think we're close to that turning point.
It seems that Samsung could spin a license with IDCC as a dramatic shift in their policies and attribute it to a reformed approach of doing business. That might actually provide the results that the Chairman is claiming they are going to embrace in a way that the market would immediately recognize as an honest business dealing - for a change!