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.
Thanks Jeff for the correction - still seems like price fixing to me.
Just because you state it publicly doesn't mean it's not price fixing, it just means that Nokia thinks they can call the shots and dictate what the laws of the land are going to be.
It's obvious that inventors need to group organize themselves into a lobbying forum that also carries some weight and a collective pocketbook to back it up. What's got outta hand is that they have squeezed the inventors to the point that they have too much money rolling in off those inventions, and now they are simply trying to nail the casket shut.
My3sons, the way they have it worded, the aggrete dollar amount for ALL contributors would remain in the single digits - Aren't they trying to say that in total they will not exceed $9.99 in total royalties paid for a notebook for the underlying technology within it.
Look what happend to OldDog - internet turned him into Commander Data - for the trekies. It's sort of a reverse Pinnocio story that I really like tellin, ha.
Whiz, just please don't underestimate yourself. Even Shay comes in after some of that history, and WM has distanced himself from the front line in his position as CEO - by his own admission.
I personally think they would have jumped all over this if they knew about it.
It would be painful not to hear from them, but I have to weigh that against how busy I will be spending all the money they brought home to papa - and of course, I would make a special trip to rejoice with them and say thanks to them at the Houston 100 party.
whiz, I had not read dmillers post, and I guess he was thinking similarly. I think that neither you or Loop give yourselves the credit you deserve, or truly recognize the insights you have gained having followed closely our litigation history across multiple legal teams.
It seems we should never assume that our current legal team knows this history like either of you. I just wish there was a way to reach out, or for IDCC to put the both of you on their payroll.
Whizz and Loop,
With all the activism on the board, such as folks contacting senators and what not, I wish you, Loop, and Jimlur somehow had an avenue to give our legal team this tidbit that perhaps they needed to have this case dismissed. It would be like throwing yourself and all shareholders a golden bone.
I guess this is really the first instance where I feel discouraged at an oversight of our lawyers because they reach out so much across all these other cases cited, but it seems apparent the key that may have put this entire issue behind us was right under their nose in our own prosecution history with the devil himself.
It's a shame to see your talents and insights limited to calling it from the armchair when such insight could have been the turnaround, or grandslam that is needed at this crossroads.
No blame to you, I'm forever grateful to you, but just wish the legal team had their eyes and ears open to the board discussions, or that there was a conduit in a circumstance like this for someone like you and loop in this day and age where everyone is an e-mail address or phone number away, that such information could have been shared with our legal representatives for the good of the cause.
The uncertainties that make it appear that way right now will possibly be resolved next week, so we just have to suffer through another week and see what hand Nokia is still holding onto.
It's all about them running with the joker that judge Batts dealt to them and posturing for either negotiating leverage or else they are hell bent on delay.
Would you trust them farther than you can throw a rock?
I'm no lawyer (obvious in most of my looney posts), but I would be surprised to see them grant reporting exclusively to the ALJ. However, in light of Nokia's forum shopping and disregard for the ALJ's jurisdiction to decide the matter of arbitration, I do see it as a valid request (first, or the alternative) that should now be strongly considered so as not to further prejudice IDCC.
I would very much like for the ALJ to take some strong position following Nokia's ploy to step to the sidelines in protecting IDCC from a continuance of a consolidated 2 against 1 battle - they had their chance, and one stabbed the other in the back in blatant disregard of the ALJs decision and in challenge to their jurisdiction, so send them each off to a separate corner for a timeout please.
In isolation Samsung has no more plays left. Let Nokia reflect on the original prejudice they sought to avoid (a predetermined Samsung case over largely the same issues), and let them stew over the actions they took that was perceived by them to be a win.
IDCC would be prejudiced now by a further delay in the Samsung proceedings, so let's conclude this with Samsung and let Nokia have a firm idea of the outcome when they circle back around for a later conclusion.
To me, if even one of the patents ultimately made arbitration (even by fluke, the 1 FDD patent developed during the TDD development agreement time frame is the only one that should have ever been considered for arbitration (then rejected by the panel), and the other three came right back to the ALJ with Samsung already concluded, then at least IDCC has not been prejudiced by Nokia's ploy.
I personally feel that for the ALJ to proceed against Nokia without IDCCs continued input would be prejudice against IDCC (debatable) - a higher risk (no representation but the ALJ) versus speedier resolution trade-off.
The speculation earlier today was that IDCC is trying to keep the Samsung settlement report exclusive to Samsung and the ALJ, and the Nokia settlement report exclusive to Nokia and the ALJ.
The Nokia objection discloses this approach as the assumed secondary "in the alternative" approach, but IDCC first and foremost would like to provide the settlement reporting directly and exclusively to the ALJ so they can provide "additional details" they otherwise could not state.
That is my take on what IDCC has requested.
Revlis, I wonder if the bargaining they refer to is their lobbying, their presidential campaign contributions, and the behind the scenes corruption from the lobbying arm of their law firm?
After all, the ALJ had already determined that they had given up any inherent rights to arbitration with IDCC by their committed pursuit of scorched-earth litigation against IDCC instead of taking the arbitration route.
Sometime's I believe certain statements are made open-endedly to flaunt their arrogance and show just how low they will stoop to abuse the legal system. I wish someday someone could draw this real bargaining out in the open for all to see who has painted faces.
I think most agree we have the winning hand for the end game. The frustration is with the legal system, and Nokia getting away with more delay tactics. Getting it transferred back to 2nd circuit - not such a biggie, but again further delay. It just seems that we entered uncharted territory "the twilight zone" because judge Batts failed to use her brain, and we haven't quite come back to the right dimension yet.
I wish the Rooster would crow
It's quite clear now that Nokia is going to milk this one for all it's worth having gained a move on the chess board. So now it's back to reading the tea leaves to see how the ALJ views Nokia's forum shopping, and whether they are willing and able to do something about it.
Things could still play out very fast next week, so a pleasant surprise is not out of the question.
For the life of me I would not want to be Samsung going into the hearing with their handful of weak affirmative defenses.
So now we have both an honorable company and a responsible business partner not paying us for 3G. Let's get our adjectives straight! How about Crooked, Deceiptful, Arrogant, and Untrustworthy...add all the others you like, but it's a start.
Yes, thanks goodness the lawyer put those words in her mouth, because originally she blurted out 4/1.
Judge Batts must be moonlighting as a 2nd job
What is discouraging is that this judge provided no basis for the conclusion - surely there is some mimimum acceptable standard of communication that should be provided to her victims, and to disclose to those on the appellate review panel what the basis of her reasoning was that brought her to this conclusion.
My thinking is the NXP has been acquired because the technology package has value to STM, although, could be their manufacturing capabilities - we don't know yet. But with products built around NXPs offerings I don't see how STM could suddenly begin replacing NXPs chip offering with their own anytime soon...somewhere in that next generation product offering I'm sure it will get interesting to see if we have a new licensee, or lost a great opportunity to acquisition by a non-licensed competitor.
I'm not going up against Data's industry expertise, just trying to use a layman's common sense, and hopefully perhaps it will not turn out to be a loss.
When I think about the high visibility poker games surrounding QCOM/NOKIA, and Nokia/InterDigital, I guess I view the acquisition route as a valid path to get IDCCs negotiating team into a company like STM, or INTEL, or CISCO to discuss the extension of a current license as being much more low key, and also much easier than a cold caller saying that you owe us money.
Seems way to early to tell how the technology in their offerings will play out. Our license will carry over if the NXP chipsets continue to be offered, so it could be a door opening rather than one shutting. It seems there will have to be communication now between STM and IDCC...wish I could truthfully say never a dull moment with IDCC
Dndodd, I am not an accountant, but I work with accountant's, and cost accountants daily leading a financials team that implements and supports the SAP software package that many large and mid-sized corporations utilize. Quite often I get pulled in to deliver auditor reporting requests that do not follow standard reporting available. Those requests are often quite immediate and high priority in nature. So it's just an opinion.
I view the cancellation of the ESPP as procedural accounting paperwork and happening off the chess board. While year-end and quarter-end are always normal times to see activity like this due to external reporting requirements, follow-on activities are often driven by either what auditors are looking at, or if by what is suspected to be something they might give attention to. It's just keeping the house in order IMO.
My take was that this measure was to our benefit, and reduce the dilution of shares, but I think up to this point it may have been accounted for as Treasury stock, so I am not certain. If so, and it reduces the Treasury stock only then it may have no impact on shares outstanding - I used to know how this worked accounting-wise, but it's been a long time for me. I'm sure someone like Rmarchma could explain this handily, along with a number of other accountants on the board.
How ironic that anyone could confuse the two
OldDog to the rescue...I was convinced I was a lying Ahlzhiemer's patient in the making. Sadly, the genetic odds say that I will be someday, so I'll enjoy this day in the sun - thanks! At 45 I guess I'm still a pup!
Mschere - good one... I was also smiling about your dot connecting.
Sometimes I see it, sometimes I don't. Astronomy was your calling.
Your Post not surprising, IMO EOM
Mschere, not sure whether I heard that from Teecee or the follow-up comments from the other fella who stayed around to hear the ruling, or from reading the transcript that was copied that many of us poured over during that following weekend. I read every post that day and most of the transcript so while I am creative, I don't think I am embellishing the story.
I am pretty sure a joke was made of it, according to one of these three sources.
If judge Batt's was not joking, then she was dead serious and in either case I don't see where her disposition will have any bearing on the outcome of the appeal.
If someone sees how it could mislead anyone it is no skin off my back for someone to delete it.
Say, I don't make fun of you for connecting dots when there is no logical connection between them do I?
I do not have a membership and have no idea if I could delete a post. Do whatever makes you happy.
Good post mainlefty, if there are any points that do lean it toward the bizarre side to me it's that she made the ruling from the bench and never explained her reasoning, which made it seem like a total write-off on her part instead of applying herself with the administration of justice that would be expected from her seat. She even joked that IDCC would be taking her ruling straight to the 2nd circuit for appeal.
Being of course, the Show Me "the money" state.
Allowed? IDCC likes to keep all this information close to their vests even more than Nokia. just my opinion.
Wasn't Clontz deposed as part of the discovery, as author of some of the patents that belong to IDCC?
Wanda002, I feel like you, but we may never know. It could be because they felt more people knew than what they considered to be strictly confidential and controlled, so they lost trust that those privy could keep progress under wraps - in that case they would have a fiduciary duty to gaurd against an inside information leak, so disclosure fulfills that duty.
It could have also been related to the options grants, which keeping this progress under wraps while spreading kudos among the insiders also could face intense scrutiny following a near-term settlement announcement soon after such gifts. How will we ever know?
I am sort of glad they did it, if it fell into either of those circumsances, but like you, I personally do not feel like a sly grin and a confident attitude, followed by a little message board chatter fits the bill for an 8K disclosure.
Loophole, If the one or both parties should come to an agreement as a result of these conferences, would you anticipate it remains under wraps until this is reported to the judge, or does that become an event of a more immediate nature?
Thanks for your help in understanding it all!
Play-by-play-nice recovery by Interdigital on 791, claim 7.
OT: I was glad to see this one too, my big nut today was that I was tick'd at the 11 Attorney Generals who went to complain about the XM/Sirius merger...can't we just cut a break to two companies that have never seen a profit. Let's pick on the small guys and beat them to death while we all lend our uncontested support to the Microsoft/Yahoo takeover...The Missouri Attorney General lost a vote today from me because he took part in this nonsense. It's an upside down world.
No problemo, I would rather hear you ranting on the board about judge Batts than going after Trent or WANDA002 for having a show me the money attitude, or going after judge Batts for that matter.
You add a lot of flavor to the board and I really like your spunk, but please learn to use the ignore feature and let folks draw their own conclusions about this investment or express a dissenting view without going after them.
If the wheels of justice could only clip along at this pace on a regular basis, we would all be living in a better world, and off sipping unbrella drinks on some exotic island recovering from the Houston 100 party.
Wanda, that is one way to evaluate it. Nokia has been pushing your method to evaluate contributions solely on number of patents.
Many argue that it is a too simple of an approach and does not take into account the quality or utility value of the patents with respect to what is gained by their use. Also, even the definition of essential is being feircely contended, and Nokia and many operators are trying to limit the scope of what would be considered essential within the standards.
The standards body ETSI has a section that defines essential, but it has been going through the courts as to how broadly that definition may be interpreted.
If a patent gets accepted into the standard, but it could be alternatively worked around - does that become essential if it was accepted into the standard? versus, it made it into the standard because there is no other way to work around it.
Many on this board know much more than I do about this, and patents themselves have various classifications (system patent, method patents, etc., so it all goes over my head rather quickly.
If he has an agenda that is not going to be putting a positive spin on IDCC,it would be wasted time to give him a bunch more amunition he can use to spin to the dark side. To me it's better to leave him be because anyone who is following this knows he doesn't have a clue right now - why smarten him up enough to write a negative article that could actually do real damage to the investors. Right now his ignorance is bliss and there is little or no harm done.