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.
Bob.
We'd all like Merritt to pin Nokia's ears back. But he's his own guy, and I believe he will try his darndest to settle things like a gentleman.
He may make reasonable concessions if it means snuffing out the four lawsuits and getting on with business.
But I don't think he'll go on the attack unless Nokia gives him the immovable finger, ifyaknowhatImean.
Red.
You may not have meant it that way, but why would Bass bad mouth IDCC's position, when they had nothing to do with the appeal?
If CAMP is aimed at frivolous offenders, why would a mediator try to talk an innocent party out of money that is rightfully theirs (according the NY District judge), just to get a settlement?
BTW, I agree 100% with your prior posts on CAMP. Although it may just be an exercise in some districts, if anyone is guilty of misuing the system, it's the boyz from EspooLand.
Bobbie.
You are correct. The discount has to be added back, and ADDITIONAL interest was also assessed by the panel for one period, as well as 5% contract rate.
Nokia griped about both the lost discount and the additional interest in its filings.
Charlie.
What does this mean? QCOM vs. Nokia:
3/16/06 43 Order by Judge Rudi M.
Brewster: The court grants Qualcomm 10 days
leave to amend the complaint to allege that manufacture of Nokia's alleged products constitutes infringement of the patents in suit. The court denies defendants' motion to dismiss [13-2] and grants defendants' motion for a more definite statement [13-3].
Defendant's motion to stay pending arbitration is denied and defendant's motion to stay pending appeal is granted [13-1]. case stayed pending appeal. (ryc) [Entry date 03/17/06].
[Edit date 03/17/06]
L2V.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
If Basse's efforts result in settlement, months of waiting would be avoided.
If his efforts are NOT successful, this could be the basis for acceleration, which also means months of waiting would be avoided.
CAMP results are not divulged to the court. However, a request for acceleration by Bass would certainly point the finger at Nokia as being the culprit who not only refused to budge, but who couldn't back up their position with acceptable legal arguments.
Loop.
Another country heard from, on the Yahoo bored:
Re: Mediation/sanction for Nokia case?
by: tez_theimpaler
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 03/19/06 08:38 am
Msg: 255355 of 255379
Stanley Bass is one of the staff counsel in the 2nd Circuit. Part of his job is to conduct a resolution conference where he gets both sides on a mandatory conference call and gives an assessment of the case based upon the papers filed in an attempt to force a resolution.
I've participated in a number of these and they can be pretty pointed as to chances for success, etc.
What about Michigan?
Are we chopped liver, or what?
Ghors.
Wouldn't Samsung have to pay (settle), or appeal?
Assuming the ICC rules in IDCC's favor, they can't just sit there and do nothing.
Perhaps you should mention percent of ownership.
If you hold the same number of shares after a buyback, you own a larger percentage of the company.
Example: 100 shares outstanding, and you own 10 shares or 10%.
If 10 shares are repurchased, you own 11.1%.
Last, $25.60.
Thanks Dave.
I'm finally on the right track.
Tex/O'Dog.
Found it under Nokia's name.
Case #05 CV 2063, filed 11/4/05.
Thanks.
O'Dog.
I was confused about the 2004 date as well. But if you recall, there were entries in one of the latest PACER events which indicated that Nokia had been stonewalling QCOM for 7 months, before Q. requested sanctions.
I don't have your talent, but I did some searching this morning, and couldn't even find the location of the court in all the articles.
A prior search in California's Southern District website, turned up nothing.
That's why I asked for the case number.
I sure hope you're right.
I think Dave Davis was following the case.
SJR.
Yeah, I know.
Frankly, I wanted to follow this case closely, so I renewed my PACER membership today.
I thought Nokia would soon be sanctioned, and this might have a favorable effect on Wall Street's view of IDCC's legal struggles with Nokia.
Looks like Jorma's batting average is not improving.
Tex.
The following are "recent events" from PACER in the QCOM/Nokia case #CV1605, which commenced on August 4, 2004, and has apparently ended.
" 2/14/06 326 Order by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major: Settlement Dispo Conf set for 9:00 2/28/06 before Mag Judge Barbara Lynn Major (ryc) [Entry date 02/14/06]
2/23/06 327 Minutes: Enter Order by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major: Stipulation for dismissal submitted; Settlement Disposition Conf set for 9:00 2/28/06 is vacated; Court Reporter: N/A (ryc) [Entry date 02/27/06]
2/27/06 328 Stipulation and Order of Dismissal by Judge Rudi M. Brewster: The claims, counterclaims in this action is
dismissed without prej pursuant to Rule 41 of the FRCP.
Eachpty shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs
associated with this action. terminating case (ryc)
[Entry date 02/28/06]"
Do I have the right case?
"Recent Events" goes back to February 10th. I didn't go back further, because I expected to see something about QCOM's recent request for sanctions.
[END OF DOCKET: 3:04cv1605]
Tex.
Thanks.
Does anyone have the case number and the name of the district court for the QCOM/Nokia suit?
Rusty.
OT.
I presume you're buying!
Ams.
I don't think they'll get off easy in San Diego, say $100 million, plus or minus.
QCOM must have given considerable thought before suing.
But, even with the new contract coming up, they apparently decided, "You're worth it!"
Mschere.
Using a 1.35 Euro, that's $483 million.
Ams.
As I recall, the 2004 provision was $478 million, using a euro at 1.35.
Ams.
How much is for QCOM?
Dave.
How about QCOM/Nokia?
DD.
Re: Reversal of income tax reserve.
I was going from memory too.
As I recall, it was from Ronnie's guestimate.
Mschere.
Who was the infringer?
I was wrong in saying Samsung's agreement is not the same as Nokia's, when it comes to named manufacturers:
"In 2002. . . .Samsung elected. . ..to have (its) royalty obligations. . . determined in accordance with the terms of the Nokia patent license agreement, including its MFL provision.
....in March 2003, ITC notified Samsung that such Samsung obligations had been defined by the relevant licensing terms of ITC’s license agreements with Ericsson (for infrastructure products) and Sony Ericsson (for terminal unit products) as a result of the MFL provision in the Nokia license agreement."
Scusa.
L2V.
Agree.
IDCC seems to have a different tone when it comes to Samsung, even though it has not yet brought them to the table.
Although Samsung tied its tail to Nokia's kite, the cases are far from identical.
Unlike Nokia, Samsung has no agreement predicated on IDCC signing a named manufacturer.
Samsung has no 3G agreement.
Samsung has no MFL clause.
Thanks for shining more light on Sammy.
Magilla.
Janet advises there will be a PR on the earnings announcement date.
Apparently they won't take the full 75 days.
She said, they "Expect the earnings date will be in early March."
Ronnie.
It's hard to believe any company would change its chairman on an analyst's "recommendation."
But generally, the board seems to be moving in the right direction.
Especially with one member coming from a well known carrier. (Cingular, if I recall correctly).
Comments by posters, in the article by Business Week, concerning the planned Nokia/Sanyo JV:
Nickname: Mark
The real story of this proposed joint venture between Nokia and Sanyo, is that Nokia cannot compete well in a market where the odds aren't stacked in its favor.
The secret to Nokia's 2G (GSM) success is that it and a few other handset makers contributed the lion's share of patents, and enjoyed favorable patent sharing positions. Other aspiring handset firms have had to shell out royalty payments approaching 20%! This skewed playing field helped Nokia establish itself as a gorilla in the handset business.
Nokia has been desperately trying to recreate a similar uneven playing field for 3G. In short, Nokia's exertion of influence has been quite damaging to competition and resulted in a superior 3G standard (CDMA 2000 promoted by Qualcomm) being shut out of Europe for years while Nokia struggled to catch up with its championed "W" CDMA. The thing is, Qualcomm collects the same royalty rate on CDMA 2000 as on "W" CDMA, revealing Nokia's real motivation--slanting the playing field.
Nickname: Skeptical2 but Courageous
I do not agree with the comment that you cannot compete in markets with just CDMA handsets. Technology has evolved and the requirements are now too great to focus on both GSM & CDMA. So I think you will see synergies from both companies that make outstanding handsets for the consumer. Heck, Verizon is the largest carrier in the world and Nokia has had little success with that carrier going at it alone. The skepticism comes from how the brand will be marketed and if the Nokia Sayo name will hold the same value to the consumer as Nokia or Sanyo alone in the CDMA business.
Nickname: skeptic
Review: Unfortunately, it's going to be tough for this new company to compete only in the CDMA market - the scale is just not there to be profitable. A tip to the management: why are LG, Samsung (even Qualcomm) etc., going over and hedging into WCDMA. Have Nokia and Sanyo really thought this through?
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060216_176562.htm
Nokia has taken the lead!
The new litigation company!
The SkunkWorks in Espoo is now in overdrive.
Mornin', Sale.
We may not have influence, but our affluence is not disputed.
We are now both retired, and living in the lap of mediocrity.
Gman.
"Retiring when Nokia is settled".
OK by me.
L2V.
I know nothing about Harry's ability. And I won't get into the compensation issue, because that horse is dead.
But I believe Carpenter is closer to the picture than most of us.
Merritt was the "next level" president, but he can't do it all by himself.
Carpenter believes we need a next level chairman.
Another day. Another battle. Never dull.
Miller.
What's your point?
I have never been a fan of Harry's.
But I've never seen an analyst openly recommend that a chairmen get the boot, when the company is doing everything right.
While it may have happened, this type of comment is usually reserved for companies that have been on the ropes for many quarters, with a clear record of declining revenues and earnings, and repeated questions about management decisions.
Carpenter obviously believes that IDCC is on the brink of greatness, but may not get there without the right leader.
Ams.
Analysts don't suddenly come up with a recommendation to boot the COB, without some basis for doing so.
Carpenter must have been thinking this for a long time.
This is something you rarely see in analyst coverage. In fact, I've never seen it before.
But, if the board decides to replace Harry, at least we (and others on Wall Street, etc.) won't be surprised, like we were with Howard and Rip Cord.
Contact the Nokia board of directors:
http://www.nokia.com/A402746
Not to worry.
I'm sure some on this board agree that NOT ALL of the jokes about lawyers and psychologists are true.
For those who missed it, the following link gives the details of Nokia's disgusting actions in the QCOM/Nokia lawsuit, and shows Nokia's contempt for everything "legal", including orders by U.S. circuit court judges:
http://wirelessledger.com/315_Memo.pdf
Nokia stalled QCOM for 7 months by failing to provide information concerning complaints that, among other things, QCOM has stymied Nokia's attempts to license it's IPR. (This is also alleged in its Lanham Act complaints against IDCC, which is why we should watch it closely).
When challenged by QCOM to come up with evidence, Nokia tried to withdraw two of its four complaints by filing with a second judge. But this judge didn't fall for Nokia's end run and denied the motion. QCOM is now requesting sanctions from the trial judge, but they are far short of what is needed.
Nokia not only failed to comply with the original discovery order, it failed to comply with a second order, when QCOM and the judge gave them a second chance to do so.
Since the strings are ultimately pulled by the client, the San Diego judge would do well to sanction not only Nokia, but its attorneys as well, and throw in a few fines for good measure.
Given all the talk earlier about ethics, lawyers, and crooked clients, we don't have to go far to find the worst examples.
Are the courts getting used to such tactics? If they're not, why are Nokia's high-paid gunslingers allowed to make another late filing in the Delaware case, with little more than a passing comment by the defendant, IDCC?
MO.
Dave.
Keep your other good eye on the QCOM/Nokia case, please.
Aside from the late filing in Delaware, Nokia has already missed two dates in San Diego, regarding discovery.
IMO, Nokia should never have been given a second chance to provide the information QCOM requested.
They had several months to do so, and clearly gave the finger to QCOM, as well as the court.
If the judge approves the sanctions requested, it will do little to reign-in Nokia and its hired guns.