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.
$25.26.
Ooooooops.
Forgot about that. LOL.
I believe the interest rate is 5%, not 9%, per the contract.
Seems silly to me that the court just can't order Nokia to produce the sales data, so that the correct amount can be determined.
There's some confusing comments on the subject of enforcing the ICC award.
One of our attorneys on Yahoo believes that Nokia would be ordered to pay, by cooperating in arriving at the proper amount owed.
If Nokia fails to do so, the court would then take more serious action.
I agree with others who don't believe that the question would have to be returned to the ICC for a decision.
I seem to recall a conversation with ICC in NY. The party said, once the award is made, the ICC is out of the loop.
Also, imagine when they're going over the terms of their agreement, and they come to the patent section.
Sanyo should want to use IDCC's patents, since it would be foolish to do otherwise.
Nokia will disagree, and tell Sanyo to pay if they wish, but they're not coughing up any cash for IDCC.
Hopefully, this will be a non-issue, since the operation is not expected to start until the third quarter.
The Japanese are very concensus oriented.
Nokia is only Nokia oriented.
This does not appear to be a marriage made in heaven.
Quartz.
Nokia has the finesse of an out-of-control Sherman tank.
They arrogantly insisted on having their name on handsets being sold by carriers.
They russle the feathers of big retailers, many of whom don't carry their phones, or don't care whether they do or not.
I still laugh when I recall The Pekkahead, who even has disdain for his own country's laws on paying duty for imported goods.
Is it any wonder that they're overshadowed in North America by smarter, more flexible manufacturers.
Mschere.
If the appelate court rules for IDCC, and Nokia refuses to open its books, why wouldn't IDCC go back to the court for another order?
After an award is made, I'm not aware that the ICC can force anyone to do anything.
Red.
Given Nokia's penchant for stretching the legal system to its limits, one might think they would welcome the complex case argument.
If they truly have a weak Lanham case, they could have two problems:
1. Being unable to prove their case.
2. The risk of outsiders talking to their executives, partners and customers, where they might find far more serious skeletons.
Bob.
OT.
Finland and the U.S. are now on CNBC, in a curling duel.
I can't stannit when I hear those guys talk.
They sound too much like The Snake.
Whizz.
If IDCC prevails on the complex case question, would this be a small or decent sized victory, in YO?
Not surprising.
The Snake doesn't like strangers poking around his lair.
But the judge may think differently.
After all, Nokia started the action. Now they want to dictate how it will be conducted.
Turn up the heat, Madam Addison!
Red.
Right or wrong, I sure like your thinking.
UPDATE 1-Finnish wireless Internet plan gets court OK
Thu Feb 9, 2006 7:00 AM ET
HELSINKI, Feb 9 (Reuters) - A Finnish court rejected appeals against the award of a new wireless broadband network licence, court documents showed on Thursday, giving the go ahead to what would be one of the first such networks of its kind.
The new Flash-OFDM technology, developed by U.S. technology firm Flarion which was acquired by Qualcomm (QCOM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) shortly after the Finnish win, is designed for fast Internet access on mobile computers.
Two competitors of Digita, privately owned firms Nordisk Mobiltelefon of Sweden and Cubio, which runs a virtual mobile network in Finland, appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the state's decision to award the licence to Digita last summer.
Both of the rival firms tried to win the licence for developing a broadband network based on current CDMA cellphone technology, developed by Qualcomm.
Flash OFDM, which is designed purely for Internet Protocol data traffic and which claims to offer superior speeds at lower cost, has only recently been selected for commercial networks in the United States, Finland and Slovakia.
"As the decision came now ... we are aiming to have the service running this autumn as we have targeted earlier," Digita Chief Executive Sirpa Ojala said.
"We have been preparing ouselves for the launch ... have looked for potential operators for the network and have followed closely the development of Flash OFDM as it's not the main technology for the vendor (Qualcomm) any more," she said.
Digita has said it aims to build the first part of the network, covering sparsely populated areas, by September 2006, with the whole of the Nordic country covered three years later.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Rox.
"The FCC today approved the Nokia 6282 and Nokia N80, as originally spec'd by Nokia.
When they were announced, both of the handsets included GSM 850/1900 and WCDMA 1900, but not WCDMA 850."
At first reading, it looked like Nokia spec'd the phones for Cingular, and Cingular made the mistake of ordering them.
I'm sure your take is more accurate and, once again, Nokia proves why it has half the market share in the U.S., compared to other countries.
Moreover, Nokia is still developing the phone Cingular wants, and it still has to be approved by the FCC.
The more they try to shove others around, the more I like it.
The more I read that article, the less sense it makes.
FCC Approves 3G Nokias, Cingular Does Not.
Date Posted: Yesterday, 6:21 PM
Source: FCC
The FCC today approved the Nokia 6282 and Nokia N80, as originally spec'd by Nokia. When they were announced, both of the handsets included GSM 850/1900 and WCDMA 1900, but not WCDMA 850.
Despite Cingular branding clearly visible on these models, the carrier will not sell these exact models. Phone Scoop has been told after they were announced, Cingular sent the phones back to Nokia asking for revised versions that support GSM and WCDMA 850/1900.
These new versions are still under development and have not been announced nor approved by the FCC.
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1578
MTS.
Cash in one thing.
Receivables are another.
Revlis.
I don't care about avoidance.
I care about guidance.
Six figure salary; six figure bonus. And the man never knows how to book anything.
Whizz.
Thanks.
I think I get the picture.
There's nothing a Snake likes worse than someone poking around its den.
The trick is to use a snare, instead of your bare hands. ifyagetmameanin'.
Whizz.
Sorry for addressing questions for you to Loop.
I didn't think you were around.
Loop.
This is my first chance to read Whizzer's definition of a discovery schedule, which was recently delayed until next Friday. i. e.,
"The discovery schedule, ....sets forth the time periods by which the parties will complete discovery, which includes witnesses to be deposed, documents to be subpoened and interrogatories."
Man. This seems like a tall order. Especially if you intend to depose people around the world.
But I'm still a little confused about the two-step approach.
First step: Keep discovery at a minimum, and then go for summary judgment.
Second step: Go the "complex" route,with all guns blazing, including probable shots in Finland, Sweden, South Korea, etc.
Questions:
1. When should the judge agree/disagree on the "complex case" question?
2. How does this two-step process work?
3. If you were handling this case, would you have waited to make your list of potential witnesses and interrogatories, until the last minute, requiring an extension?
Whizz.
If a discovery plan doesn't involve witnesses, exhibits, or ?, kindly explain what its purpose is.
Whizzer.
The legal comments on this board are priceless. But are you and others giving Ms. Addison any credit for taking the right approach in Delaware?
Could she not have opted for a K Mart response, and gotten just as far with a simple and outright denial of all claims by Nokia?
In throwing down the international gauntlet, could she have one eye on Samsung, which has already been convicted of price fixing? i.e., is it not strange that Samsung, out of the blue, suddenly tied its tail to Nokia's kite, without collusion or intent to harm IDCC?
Bottom line: How many times do you see this "complex" approach used in litigation?
IDCC will soon increase their guidance.
No doubt, they will mention LG as the reason.
Loop.
He says he'll check it out.
Loop.
I sent him an email, with a copy to you, about 10 minutes ago. I'll let you know if he responds.
He should be in good humor. I sent him The Pekka article (I'm not a crook!) this morning.
LC.
Data Rox is usually the guru I look to, to explain the technical side of IDCC's business.
Ed may also be an expert, but his knowledge is usually overshadowed by his obvious affection for our friends in San Diego.
I have noticed, however, that you have often made posts that indicate you have a sound knowledge of what makes a cell phone tick.
Explaining this to a bunch of greenhorns on a daily basis can get tiresome, I'm sure. But I, for one, would like to see you join the tech discussion more often.
O'Dog.
You're right. As usual, the government gets a break.
As of today, there has been no appeal. And we're halfway through the appeal period.
So, it's not, and never was the first order of business.
However, I believe the last card will be played, or not played, on January 27th.
Dave.
Yeah, I read the 60 day thing, but dismissed it as being a potential black hole for Nokia.
As you recall, Nokia's spokeswoman said an appeal would be the first order of business, followed by discussions on how to apply the decision.
BTW, before the NY decision, I also was betting on an appeal. Then came those 30 (plus) articles about Nokia's loss.
Then came Nokia's admission that it was using our patents, and slight indications that they might be at the end of the line.
Dave.
I thought the additional 60 days only applied to government appeals.
So. You're saying they want a double-arse whipping?
In public?
BTW, Hoboso called from vacation. He ran into a NY attorney at the hotel where he's staying.
The attorney thought very highly of Judge Pauley, and said he (mostly) writes bullet proof decisions.
More important: The appeals court is located in the same building as the Circuit. And decisions come rather quickly, and generally do not take the year (plus), that some on this board have projected.
Dave.
"IMO, the appeal is a sure bet."
Didn't you say Nokia has never appealed a federal court decision in more than several hundred lawsuits?
Why would they make an exception now?
What's the deal?
IDCC has already responded to Nokia's Lanham Act claims.
Why isn't the ball in Nokia's court?
Whizz.
Whose move was this, IYO?
Isn't it Nokia's responsibility to prove their Lanham Act case?
Sale.
Now you're in trouble.
The next number starts with an "f".
Nite all.
Happy New Year to you, and the Nokia lurkers/observers.
Ricardo.
I don't quarrel with what you're saying about court costs and fees.
But some have equated these with double and treble damages.
Also, the interest rate is simply too low. When you can earn 4% during an appeal, and pay 5%, the difference is only 1%.
In itself, not very punitive.
However, a cash bond or letter of credit could help Nokia decide on a course of action, unless they're deliberately planning on a short duration.
Corp.
True.
But I don't think you can characterize those as "substantial".
In order to ring the "big bell", I believe IDCC would have to file a cross-action in Delaware, and plead its case for damages, other than costs and attorney's fees.
Corp.
Why did I ask?
I was told by one attorney that sanctions in federal court (you cited a state action) involving contract disputes, cannot be awarded.
Maybe someone can clarify. I'd be delighted if heavy sanctions could be imposed.