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.
sjratty: Does 'confirming' the award entail enforcing the award?
If it does, in your opinion, how would the court enforce the award?
If it does not, then what is the point of confirming the award?
L2V:
...Somebody with the court's authority to get the sales figures, direct and validate the required computations, establish the final amounts due, and verify that those funds are transmitted to IDCC's account in a timely manner.
I wonder if Ronny Marchma is available for this.
Ron, if you're reading this, perhaps you could forward your C.V. to Judge Pauley. (You may want to redact any references to your status as long time InterDigital shareholder.)
Just a thought.
My3sons: Santa can wait. I'm kind of hoping we stay in the 17's for a few weeks. I'm going to get me one of those Roth IRAs after the first of the year.
Plant a few shares in early 2006 and watch it grow tax-free for about 10 years.
Can you imagine?
...some of the 2g dough for some steady 3g dough
TC,
Didn't I see you in 'Guys and Dolls'?
Just curious.
OK everybody. Back to work.
There it goes. 319,500. Looks like just slow volume.
Not moving on Schwab. $18.33 318,500 shares traded.
UK Case:
Apoligies if this has already been posted, but this document shows that the UK 2G case has been adjourned until January 11.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/files/section1.pdf
songian: Here's some more background on Cramer, and one of his writers, Cody Willard. These are some posts of mine regarding e-mails I exchanged with both Cramer and Willard last April.
At this point, my sense is they can do more harm than good. In any event, I feel Cramer is a lot less relevant than people think.
Dave
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6099682&txt2find=cramer+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6099702&txt2find=cramer+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6100999&txt2find=cramer+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6101688&txt2find=cramer+
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6441032&txt2find=cramer+
Warbil: A question on recognizing Nokia arb revenue:
Does the confirmation decision actually have to occur in this calendar year for InterDigital to recognize the revenue?
Assuming a decision came after January 1st, but before the annual year end audit was completed, could the company still recognize the revenue, or would it be considered a 'subsequent event?'
If IDCC gets a fovorable ruling this year...
Nothing new on PACER. Off to ride trash trucks in Lompoc. Have a good week all.
DD: You speak for me. It’s a real head-scratcher. Makes you wonder how they define ‘material.’
Notice how it was not accompanied by a press release. Janet probably did not want to be ridiculed by business editors.
I welcome the event itself. It’s just not 8-K material.
Here's what the Delaware PACER site looks like this morning. Nothing filed in 5 months. Frustrating.
1:05-cv-00016-JJF Nokia Corporation, et al v. Interdigital Comm., et al
Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., presiding
Date filed: 01/12/2005 Date of last filing: 06/13/2005
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
24 Filed & Entered: 06/13/2005
Letter
23 Filed & Entered: 06/08/2005
Letter
22 Filed & Entered: 06/03/2005
Letter
21 Filed & Entered: 05/16/2005
Letter
20 Filed & Entered: 05/12/2005
Reply Brief
14 Filed & Entered: 04/28/2005
Answering Brief in Opposition
15 Filed & Entered: 04/28/2005
Appendix
16 Filed & Entered: 04/28/2005
Declaration
17 Filed & Entered: 04/28/2005
Declaration
18 Filed & Entered: 04/28/2005
Declaration
19 Filed & Entered: 04/28/2005
Declaration
13 Filed & Entered: 04/15/2005
Letter
-- Filed: 03/23/2005
Entered: 03/24/2005
SO ORDERED
12 Filed & Entered: 03/23/2005
Stipulation
10 Filed & Entered: 03/15/2005
Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Subject Jurisdiction
11 Filed & Entered: 03/15/2005
Opening Brief in Support
9 Filed & Entered: 03/02/2005
SO ORDERED
8 Filed: 02/25/2005
Entered: 02/28/2005
Terminated: 03/02/2005
Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
-- Filed: 02/10/2005
Entered: 02/11/2005
Set Deadlines
7 Filed: 02/04/2005
Entered: 02/07/2005
Terminated: 02/10/2005
Stipulation
6 Filed: 01/28/2005
Entered: 01/31/2005
Declaration
4 Filed & Entered: 01/19/2005
Case Assigned/Reassigned
5 Filed: 01/19/2005
Entered: 01/20/2005
Summons Returned Executed
3 Filed: 01/18/2005
Entered: 01/19/2005
Summons Returned Executed
-- Filed: 01/12/2005
Entered: 01/13/2005
Jury Demand
-- Filed: 01/12/2005
Entered: 01/13/2005
Summons Issued
1 Filed: 01/12/2005
Entered: 01/13/2005
Complaint
2 Filed: 01/12/2005
Entered: 01/13/2005
Disclosure Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
12/06/2005 10:35:30
PACER Login: mc3344 Client Code:
Description: History/Documents Search Criteria: 1:05-cv-00016-JJF
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checking PACER at least twice per day. Nothing yet. However, I will be out on Thursday and Friday.
I will send a note to Warbil, so he can make sure to check on those days. I believe sjratty and Corp_Buyer are probably also checking.
Here's what it looks like this morning. Notice that the last filing was 9/22/05:
1:05-cv-06180-WHP Interdigital Communications Corporation et al v. Nokia Corporation
William H. Pauley, III, presiding
Date filed: 07/01/2005 Date of last filing: 09/22/2005
History
Doc.
No. Dates Description
49 Filed: 09/22/2005
Entered: 09/23/2005
Order
48 Filed: 09/21/2005
Entered: 09/22/2005
Stipulation and Order
47 Filed & Entered: 09/16/2005
Notice (Other)
44 Filed & Entered: 09/12/2005
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
45 Filed & Entered: 09/12/2005
Notice (Other)
46 Filed & Entered: 09/12/2005
Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
-- Filed & Entered: 09/06/2005
Cashiers Remark
-- Filed & Entered: 09/06/2005
Cashiers Remark
42 Filed: 09/02/2005
Entered: 09/06/2005
Stipulation and Order
39 Filed & Entered: 08/29/2005
Memorandum of Law in Oppisition to Motion
40 Filed & Entered: 08/29/2005
Declaration in Opposition to Motion
41 Filed & Entered: 08/29/2005
Notice (Other)
38 Filed & Entered: 08/26/2005
Affidavit of Service Other
-- Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk
-- Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk
-- Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk
-- Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk
-- Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk
-- Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Transmission to Attorney Admissions Clerk
31 Filed & Entered: 08/19/2005
Notice (Other)
32 Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
33 Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
34 Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
35 Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
36 Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
37 Filed: 08/19/2005
Entered: 08/22/2005
Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
26 Filed: 08/12/2005
Entered: 08/16/2005
Terminated: 08/19/2005
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
27 Filed: 08/12/2005
Entered: 08/16/2005
Terminated: 08/19/2005
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
28 Filed: 08/12/2005
Entered: 08/16/2005
Terminated: 08/19/2005
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
29 Filed: 08/12/2005
Entered: 08/16/2005
Terminated: 08/19/2005
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
30 Filed: 08/12/2005
Entered: 08/16/2005
Terminated: 08/19/2005
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
24 Filed: 08/05/2005
Entered: 08/08/2005
Scheduling Order
20 Filed & Entered: 08/03/2005
Notice (Other)
21 Filed: 08/03/2005
Entered: 08/04/2005
Stipulation and Order
22 Filed: 08/03/2005
Entered: 08/04/2005
Order on Motion to Seal Document
14 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2005
Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement
15 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2005
Motion to Vacate Arbitration
16 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2005
Declaration in Support of Motion
17 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2005
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion
18 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2005
Response to Petition to Compel/Confirm/Modify/Stay/Vacate Arbitration
19 Filed & Entered: 08/02/2005
Notice of Appearance
13 Filed: 07/20/2005
Entered: 07/25/2005
Terminated: 08/19/2005
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
12 Filed: 07/13/2005
Entered: 07/14/2005
Order
6 Filed & Entered: 07/07/2005
Certificate of Service Other
7 Filed & Entered: 07/07/2005
Certificate of Service Other
8 Filed & Entered: 07/07/2005
Terminated: 08/03/2005
Motion to Seal Document
9 Filed & Entered: 07/07/2005
Declaration in Support of Motion
10 Filed & Entered: 07/07/2005
Certificate of Service Other
11 Filed: 07/07/2005
Entered: 07/08/2005
Notice of Case Assignment/Reassignment
-- Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Case Designated ECF.
-- Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Case Designation
-- Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Summons Issued
1 Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Petition to Compel/Confirm/Modify/Stay/Vacate Arbitration
2 Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Notice (Other)
3 Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Declaration in Support of I.F.P.
4 Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Notice (Other)
5 Filed: 07/01/2005
Entered: 07/05/2005
Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
12/06/2005 10:20:21
PACER Login: mc3344 Client Code:
Description: History/Documents Search Criteria: 1:05-cv-06180-WHP
Billable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Novatel has accrued about $10 million in accrued liabilities for unlicensed IPR royalties. See notes 2 and 7 on its August 9, 2005 10-Q report.
They are already licensed with QCOM. I wonder who else they may owe.
http://investor.novatelwireless.com/edgar.cfm
Yep. Any rumors to that effect were based on bad intelligence.
laranger: This post captures the essence of today's hearing.
Because many of the documents in this case had been filed under seal, none of us knew for sure whether something new or unexpected would come out of today's hearing.
As Donald Rumsfeld would have said, "We didn't know, what we didn't know."
But now that the whole world knows for sure that Nokia has no pot in which to pee, and that Nokia's appeal (if they do appeal) will be fruitless, the share price should move up.
From here, any negotiating leverage that Nokia may have will begin to diminish over time.
If Nokia does not realize this, then I am confident that other potential licensees will.
I am confident that, even if Nokia files an appeal, we will soon see some significant license agreements (Samsung, LG, Novatel, Ericsson, etc.).
I am very encouraged by today's hearing.
Have a good weekend all.
Dave Davis
As I recall, Nokia had a meeting with analysts today in New York. Perhaps they wanted to give their Investor Relations folks a chance to get back to Finland before the decision was made.
I think it was his bling bling and sideways cap that gave him away.
A little more from MTS:
Basically, Nokia's lawyers argued the merits of the arbitration. There was nothing about malfeasance, corruption, etc.
The judge repeatedly asked the Nokia lawyers to point him to some case law that would enable him to vacate or modify the arbitration decision, and they could not come up with anything.
MTS also said that the original arbitration hearing lasted 2 months, included 25 witnesses, and resulted in a 34 page decision.
He said that, toward the end of the hearing, the Nokia lawyer reminded the judge that there were members of the investment community in the courtroom.
My comment. Perhaps the Nokia lawyer was afraid the judge might make his ruling right then and there, and he wanted to give the judge a reason to hold off on making a decision.
No. Yes. Yes.
No. We only spoke for a couple minutes. He said Guido and his wife were there, and they were taking copious notes. So we should get a better idea of what transpired when they post.
MTS said the judge asked Nokia, "Is their anything about the arbitration that you were satisfied with?"
"Yes. They were happy with the 50% reduction in the royalty rates."
"Then why are you here, so you can get it down to 15%?" (Not sure if this is a direct quote from the judge or MTS adding color to his comments.)
Judge to Nokia lawyers, "Can you point me to some case law as to why I should modify or vacate the arbitration award?"
Per MTS, the Nokia lawyer did not have a good anwser.
Just got off the phone with My3sons. He did not hear anything that made him concerned about his investment.
He said the judge asked some pointed questions of the Nokia lawyers, for which (in My3son's opinion) they did not have good answers.
It's over for today. "Thank you gentlemen. Decision reserved."
My3sons just called:
The judge just finished a criminal case. They are taking a break, and will convene our hearing shortly.
More as it comes...
Right about now. I spoke to My3sons a few minutes ago. He was in the cafeteria. He has his cell phone with him. He is going to call me when he knows something.
When he does, I will post.
Dave
I wonder if RIMM is developing the 'workaround' in house, or if they are using an outside firm.
Judge has ruled RIMM's $450 million settlement is not valid. AP
Yep. My whole experience with InterDigital has given a new meaning to the term 'Buy and Hold.'
I have no idea.
Samsung to produce Qualcomm phone chips [The San Diego Union-Tribune]
Nov. 24--Qualcomm and Samsung, two giants in the wireless industry, are expanding their
relationship with a deal in which the South Korean company will make cell phone chips under the
Qualcomm brand. The companies did not disclose the value of the deal or the number of chips to be manufactured.
Samsung, which makes both chips and cell phones, is one of Qualcomm's largest customers.
San Diego-based Qualcomm is a developer of wireless technology and a designer of semiconductors for cell phones. It contracts with other companies to produce chips under Qualcomm's name.
The deal between Qualcomm and Samsung is key to both companies.
It allows Samsung to diversify by contracting out its chip-making services.
For Qualcomm, the agreement will help the company meet rising demand for chips in cell phones. Analyst Michael Cohen of Pacific American Securities said the agreement may be a sign that
Qualcomm is gearing up to sell more chips as the next generation of cellular networks are built.
Qualcomm's wireless technology, called code-division multiple access, or CDMA, is used by about
one in five cell phones throughout the world.
Eventually, virtually all cell phones will use Qualcomm's technology, either in the form of CDMA
or what is known as wideband CDMA. Qualcomm sells chips that run cell phones and collects royalties
on the sale of phones using its technology.
"Our foundry agreement with Samsung will provide an additional source of supply and assist us in
our strategy aimed to ensure capacity to support existing and anticipated business growth in both
CDMA and WCDMA markets," Sanjay K. Jha, president of Qualcomm's chip division, said in a statement.
Oh-Hyun Kwon, president of Samsung's logic technologies business, called the agreement "the next
logical step in a long-standing relationship."
The Samsung deal "is more confirmation that the global ramp to wideband CDMA is truly
happening," said Cohen, the analyst. "Only when the rest of the cellular networks go to wideband
CDMA do they have to pay royalties to Qualcomm. That's the other 80 percent of the market."
Samsung has threatened over the years to begin manufacturing its own cell phone chips, Cohen
said. Analysts said the agreement between the two companies lessens that threat.
"I think strengthening the partnership lessens the potential for competitive tension," Cohen
said.
The Samsung deal, announced late Tuesday, comes at a time when Qualcomm is under fire for its
licensing agreements.
Last month, six major wireless companies complained to the European Commission about what they
described as Qualcomm's "anti-competitive conduct."
Broadcom Corp., Ericsson, NEC, Nokia, Panasonic Mobile Communications and Texas Instruments
filed complaints that accused Qualcomm of overcharging for its technology and stifling competitors.
Qualcomm has said the allegations are "factually inaccurate and legally meritless."
Analyst Albert Lin of American Technology Research said the Samsung deal provides Qualcomm with
an ally.
"With six large companies pressuring the European Commission to investigate claims of unfair
business practices, Qualcomm can count on the support of Samsung," Lin said in a research note.
To see more of The San Diego Union-Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
http://www.uniontrib.com.
Copyright (c) 2005, The San Diego Union-Tribune
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. For information on republishing this
content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-
mail reprints@krtinfo.com.
News Provided by Acquire Media Corporation
OT: Bulldozer. These were funny. Thanks.
I'm thinking we close over $20.00
Dariejam. Welcome. Here's a good place to start your DD. Of the two reports, I would start with Scot Robertson's.
Analyst report by Tom Carpenter of Hilliard Lyons:
http://wirelessledger.com/idccSept222005.pdf
Analyst report by Scot Robertson of Halpern Capital:
http://wirelessledger.com/IDCC2005%200922%20Initiation.pdf
Thanks
Why does it say March 4, 2002?
Very cool...