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.
strictly speaking, the following is OT, but I think of obvious interest nonetheless -- please understand that by posting this I am not in any way trying to make any particular comment regarding, or to otherwise re-start, any of our prior IDCC-specific discussions (. . .) of such matters; just found it interesting and have to guess others here will as well:
(BSNS WIRE) What Directors Want; Question Value of Allowing Easier Shareholder
Nomination of Board Members; Applaud Stricter Director Independence and End to
Corporate Loans
Business Editors
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 2, 2003--
Corporate Directors doubt that extensive shareholder
involvement in how companies are run would help - and believe that it
could hinder - efforts to improve corporate governance, according to a
recent survey by executive compensation consultants Pearl Meyer &
Partners. Although Board members express support for most governance
reforms, they are pessimistic about others, such as allowing easier
shareholder nomination of Directors.
The Pearl Meyer & Partners survey questioned 84 Directors serving
on Boards of the nation's 200 largest industrial and service
companies. Because corporate Board members seldom express their
personal opinions publicly, the survey offers a rare and timely
glimpse into their views on the ongoing controversy regarding the
adequacy of Board oversight. Just this week, the Securities and
Exchange Commission announced plans to enact new rules that would ease
direct nomination and election of independent Board candidates by
shareholders.
Some Changes in Oversight Called Counterproductive
Board members who responded to the survey do not unilaterally
oppose the current crop of enacted and proposed governance reforms,
nor are they completely comfortable. Fully 50% of respondents - among
the largest margins of any governance change covered by the survey --
predict a negative long-term impact if SEC rules are changed to permit
shareholders to more easily place independent candidates on Boards.
Most of the other Directors say such a change would have little or no
impact, with just 6% labeling it a positive move.
In contrast, appointment of a Lead Director is favored by 69% of
Directors, and 40% support the idea of having a non-CEO Chair.
Respondents also endorse two aspects of Sarbanes-Oxley -- nearly 75%
say the year-old law's ban on company loans to executives will improve
governance and 61% favor its stricter definition of Director
independence. They are somewhat less impressed by the law's
requirement that a company's CEO and CFO sign its financial
statements, with just over one-half expecting it will have a positive
effect and nearly all the other respondents predicting little change.
Directors are divided about the benefits of permitting more
shareholder involvement in corporate pay decisions. Forty-two percent
predict a new stock exchange requirement that shareholders approve all
equity compensation plans will have little or no impact, with the rest
about evenly split on whether it would be positive or negative. With
respect to requiring shareholder approval of actual executive pay
levels and practices, 40% say it will have a negative effect, with
other Directors evenly divided between predictions of a positive
impact or minimal effect.
"The extent of direct shareholder involvement is a classic debate
that is being recast in a super-charged governance environment," said
Steven E. Hall, President of Pearl Meyer & Partners. Noting, as an
example, shareholder dissatisfaction with how Boards oversee executive
compensation, Hall said, "While Directors recognize the need to regain
public confidence, they also believe that effective governance lies in
their ability to exercise their business judgment in corporate
matters."
Director Job Becoming Tougher
Sixty-three percent of respondents say fulfilling Sarbanes-Oxley
mandates has significantly increased their Board workload and made it
more difficult to obtain adequate Director insurance- issues that have
prompted nearly one-half of the Directors to consider relinquishing
their Board seats. Recruiting Board members also has become more
difficult, according to 83% of respondents, particularly to fill seats
on the demanding audit and compensation committees. In a related
finding, three-quarters of respondents support a current trend toward
differentiating committee pay based on the responsibility, risk and
workload involved. Overall, more than 70% of the Directors describe
their own pay as appropriate, with the rest rating it "low."
Asked about equity use, 70% of respondents say at least half of
Director pay should be equity-based, with the most favored formula a
50/50 mix of cash and either full-value stock or a combination of
stock and stock options. According to Pearl Meyer & Partners' analysis
of 2003 proxies, Director compensation at the largest 200 companies
averaged $155,000, of which 60% was delivered in stock. More than 80%
of respondents believe Directors should be required to purchase
company stock and even more - 94% -- say Directors should be required
to retain at least a portion of shares acquired through grants or
option exercise.
Why Serve?
Interest in the company is the most often mentioned motivation for
Board service, named by three-quarters of respondents. It is followed
by prestige, named by slightly under half the Directors. The reasons
cited least are compensation, ownership, or camaraderie, each named by
fewer than one-quarter of respondents.
Three-quarters of Directors support a mandated Board retirement
age, with nearly all recommending somewhere between 70 and 75 years as
most appropriate. By a slightly smaller margin, respondents take a
positive stance on limiting Directors' other Board memberships, with
most suggesting a limit of three to five seats.
About Pearl Meyer & Partners
Pearl Meyer & Partners, a Clark Consulting practice, is one of the
nation's leading consulting firms dedicated to executive, employee and
Board compensation. The firm serves Boards of Directors, Compensation
Committees and senior managements of major corporations in the design
and implementation of customized, innovative compensation strategies
and programs.
SOURCE: Pearl Meyer & Partners
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Pearl Meyer & Partners
Michele Morse, 212-644-2300
or
TowersGroup Inc
Margaret Towers, 212-354-5020
*** end of story ***
OT: Menander --
I fully intended in that post to communicate utter scorn, richly-deserved scorn imo, for that to which, and for the one to whom, I was responding -- good to know I succeeded, lol
I just sometimes get really tired of assertions and conclusions presented summarily, arrogantly and dismissively by means of sneering innuendo, ridicule and putdowns rather than by means of anything resembling intelligent discussion or argument
at least when I get going on something I make an effort to try to explain how and why I take the position I do, and to respond to points/arguments made by those who disagree with me
thanks for your kind words -- you take care too
L2v and my3sons -- just for the record -- the version of the Special Master's Report that was made publicly available was just an initial draft -- the final Special Master's Report was always kept under seal, and was never made publicly available
Data -- re "As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle", King Solomon you ain't -- you say I'm the one spinning? so this situation is all IDCC's fault, and not at all the fault, the bad faith, of NOK or Samsung? and IDCC should just cave and cut the payments to which it is clearly entitled just to calm NOK's and Samsung's shameless hissy fits? yah, right, now why couldn't I see that . . . and of course I'm sure that's the same sage advice you also consistently gave QCOM through all its years of battling to get its royalty agreements in place . . . -- and just when, exactly, did I ever say anything about billions in back 2G royalties?
(as for your other comments -- whatever, Buckwheat . . .)
and LOL right back at ya, you funny guy, you -- as we can all see, you just are not going to answer my 'not publicly-available' question (geez, what a surprise), but instead are just gonna try spreading your fertilizer around here one more time and (just for good measure) dismissing my post as not worthy of being taken seriously 'cuz I must have been drunk (nope, not hardly) -- classy (uh, NOT) and no doubt classic Rocks you're tossing around here, Data -- is this all you've got to say for yourself, really? -- pretty danged weak for such a shrewd and powerful know-it-all industry insider . . .
btw, you of course forgot to highlight what IDCC said it believed about the referenced (and long-since vacated, and thus long-since completely irrelevant) rulings, to wit, that ". . . these rulings, which remain under Court seal, do not materially affect the relief sought by InterDigital Technology Corporation."
where the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson rates do not reference or specifically rely upon, and are not limited by reference to, any particular claims of any particular patents, neither do those rates as properly applicable and applied to NOK and Samsung -- and for by now the umpteenth time, one piece of information here that is publicly available is that no legal rulings on any claim of any IDCC patent survived the settlement and dismissal of the ERICY case, notwithstanding the canard to the contrary you just keep tossing out to try to confuse the point and give yourself cover to escape from the hole you've dug for yourself on this topic -- in both respects, whether or not you or NOK or Samsung may happen to like these realities of the situation just does not matter, does not change said realities
and if you or NOK or Samsung really think that NOK and Samsung are not only going to get the sealed records of that settled and dismissed case to which they were not party unsealed, but are also going to get any long-since vacated rulings included in said sealed records reinstated, well . . . let's just say that we here on the IDCC side of the battlefield are not going to be the ones who are going to run out of Snickers bars and end up wishing they still had some kind, any kind, of potent potables left with which to drown out their ever so sad and bitter agony of defeat . . .
olddog967 -- no claim of any granted IDCC patent was declared invalid as a result of the Ericsson case -- anything and everything from that case that might have had any such effect if the case had gone to a verdict and the entering of a judgment was vacated at the time of the settlement of the case, and since then has had absolutely no continuing legal validity or effect whatsoever
ubx --
I think that fishing for something -- anything -- along such lines is clearly at least a large part of why NOK is/Samsung apparently will be pursuing their respective motions to unseal -- but to be frank I just don't think that such an approach, apart from being an obvious element in their tactic of delay, really leads NOK and Samsung to much of anything other than a particularly futile exercise in forehead-flattening -- a moment of silence, please, for the hectares of innocent old-growth timber that no doubt will be slaughtered if the motions to unseal are granted . . .
. . .
OK -- continuing -- let's explore this just a bit:
for any such theory to bear fruit for NOK and Samsung, they have to show some such thing as that IDCC traded a cheap settlement through '01 for excessive royalties from '02 on
several indisputable considerations/facts, in particular when taken together, blow any such scenario right out of the water imo
first, for there to have been any chance of a settlement, there can be no doubt that IDCC simply had to begin by giving Ericsson the benefit of the same royalties deal through '01 that NOK got through '01 -- period -- and in fact the settlement amount actually paid by Ericsson through '01 is right in the ballpark in that respect -- not obviously too much, not obviously too little
second, there simply cannot be any argument that the infra rate being paid by Ericsson from '02 on could possibly be unfair or unreasonable as applied to to Ericsson, or as applied to anyone else for that matter
[note how this all just continues spiralling downward as we go on]
well, OK, NOK and Samsung might then say, in the alternative maybe the infra rate was not part of the payoff, but instead was also part of the inducement for the ultimate fraudulent payoff of an excessive handset rate for Sony-Ericsson -- (at least) two problems with that argument, however -- 1) Sony got no benefit from either of such purported inducements, and Sony bears half of the burden of that purported excessive handset-rate payoff given IDCC in return for for those purported inducements, yet Sony still did agree to that purportedly excessive handset rate for Sony-Ericsson (that very fact in itself being very strong direct evidence that the Sony-Ericsson handset rate was indeed a fair and reasonable rate negotiated and agreed to at arm's length); and 2) this scenario places the bulk of IDCC's purported payoff, the bulk of its ultimate potential recovery from the entire settlement, at risk with Sony-Ericsson, at that time (and even still) a handset-maker with a not entirely certain and in any event difficult to quantify future (this of course being a strong point supporting the argument that IDCC had good reason to, and in fact did, get all it could from the very same settlement through '01 and the very same infra rate from '02 on, rather than having given those away as inducements for a fraudulently excessive Sony-Ericsson handset rate)
but wait!, NOK and Samsung might then say, in the second alternative, how about the entire settlement was an inducement to Ericsson and Sony to agree to a fraudulently excessive handset rate for Sony-Ericsson that all three parties knew would never amount to a hill of beans but would ultimately net IDCC its big payoff from, by hacking the hell out of, NOK and Samsung -- and re this, well, still some problems (by this point the whole string of possible arguments already going around in a circle like a snake swallowing itself tail first) -- 1) what particular good would that actually do for either Ericsson or Sony if neither of them were any longer (expecting to be) actually competing with NOK and Samsung in handsets (one possibility is that they'd try to argue that anything that would weaken NOK could give some advantage to Ericsson in its core infra business, and anything that would weaken Samsung could give some advantage to Sony in whatever respects it's in competition with Samsung -- but GEEZ that is really stretching things -- see also 2) next following); and 2) [in particular if their answer to 1) is that the advantage to Ericsson was getting off cheap altogether, and Sony just didn't give a crap] both Ericsson and Sony have put real money and time and effort into Sony-Ericsson, easily more than enough to have established it by/before the settlement as a real bona fide business in which both Ericsson and Sony had plenty at stake, plenty at risk; and 3) the Sony-Ericsson handset rate just is not excessive!!!!! get over it already, geesh!!!!!!!!; and 4) do you guys at/representing NOK and Samsung really believe any of this crap you're trying to argue!?; and so forth . . .
not worth any more of my time trying to noodle any further of the iterations of the nonsense built into of this house-of-cards fantasy of a substantive avenue of attack against IDCC and its assertion of the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/rates -- imo the only thing such theories/arguments might accomplish for NOK and Samsung is to assist their tactic of delay by serving up a purported justification for their motions to unseal, and by providing a drum to continue beating ad infinitum should those motions be granted (where I strongly suspect that in fact those responsible for NOK's and Samsung's current tactics share in this perspective . . .)
so, anyway -- bottom line, nah, I don't think so -- apart only from being of some value to their tactic of delay, this pig of an approach ain't about to go flying off anywhere (unless, of course, it rips a really big one right into to an open flame . . .)
Count -- I probably should clarify just a bit -- even though I'm not following along with your reasoning exactly, your common sense is leading you toward the correct conclusion imo (for my reasoning, see my posts these last few days to loop and rmarchma and my posts to Data today)
Count -- you're doing just fine (eom)
if NOK wants to attack those (or any of IDCC's) patents, they will have to start from scratch -- what happened in a sealed (right? or does my memory fail me?) PSJ that didn't even last long enough to be appealable before being vacated wouldn't necessarily mean much (if it's even available); certainly not legally binding on anyone in any way as any sort of precedent or binding prior ruling or prior finding
and then there's the (very strong, imo) argument that under the terms of its license agreement NOK would still be just as bound by the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson rates even if NOK went ahead and accomplished the same result as in the PSJ, and for that matter even if they got the whole boatload at stake in the ERICY case thrown out (obviously, highly unlikely) -- i.e., the whole exercise would be irrelevant, just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing; so what if they did? -- Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson agreed to their rates after the PSJ and with full knowledge of not only the PSJ but also of everything in the [other] sealed documents and in everything else that got vacated; and in agreeing to those rates they entered into general, standards-defined license agreements not limited by reference to any particular patents or patent claims (right?) . . .
btw -- which patents, affected how? publicly-available info, or not? if publicly-available info, please refresh our memories, TIA -- and if not publicly-available info, pardon me for asking but how would NOK know, and for that matter how would you know NOK knows? (hey, YOU brought this up -- and I'm sorry, but if what you say NOK knows is not publicly-available info, then no automatic credibility on this one -- my experience tells me, in general, that if a person has, e.g., knowledge of NOK having had unauthorized access to sealed documents/confidential information, then that person would never say anything about it to anyone s/he doesn't know, and most certainly not by means of a post on a board like this where the message is stored in a third-party database and kept publicly available indefinitely -- accordingly, I certainly want to assume that if it's not publicly-available info to which you're referring then it's still info that NOK and you got fair and square in some fashion; I'd certainly appreciate any help you might be able to give to help nail that down . . .)
on another point -- judging by your lack of response, I take it I was correct in inferring that you consider the rates IDCC negotiated with Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson to be unfair and unreasonable to Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson, indeed unfair and unreasonable also to NOK and Samsung and anyone else asked to pay them? -- dang, ya just gotta love IDCC's management, don't ya, beating the OEMs up so bad that arbitration and the courts are the OEMs' only remaining sanctuaries, their only remaining hopes for survival -- but wait just a second here, I now see that in a response to L2v you've just said "E doesn't think they ate crow at all...they saw it as a win." -- well, okey-dokey then! -- so I guess the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson rates are fair and reasonable after all; and NOK and Samsung should be fat and happy with those rates and ready to pay up, but instead they're just being [multi-word expletive deleted]s, right? (now with that I most definitely would agree, lol)
re "guess we'll wait and see, eh?" -- well, we sure aren't going anywhere -- nice and comfy, got plenty of Snickers and other consumables and potables, plenty of cash in the bank, business is good; all set to see this one through . . . eh yourself, eh?
no there hasn't -- that move by Sanders was vacated, remember?
Data_Rox -- so, may we take it, then, that the rates to which Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson agreed, as you point out "after Sanders removed the claims" (which removal has since been vacated, and thus has absolutely NO present legal significance whatsoever, whether NOK and Samsung ever get to see the related sealed documents or not), are unfair and unreasonable in your view -- !?
(leaving aside the deeper issue of whether anything regarding patent validity/enforceability, as such, is even relevant to, has any bearing on, the question whether NOK and Samsung are properly bound under their licenses by the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/rates . . .)
georgebailey -- as I should, I'll leave that specific question to the litigators -- I negotiate, structure, document and close deals (using whatever specialists I may need in the given circumstance in order to do so)
georgebailey -- doubtful that your understanding, at least as stated, is correct -- remember that IDCC never had the chance to appeal whatever was in those documents/rulings that it would have had if the case had gone to trial/verdict
sjratty -- and as I think you would have to agree, the answers, in proper order, to said 'real issue' virtually certainly are 1) the court's vacating the orders indeed was proper, and therefore 2) all of IDCC's patents survived, period
Gamco -- AS IF having NOK come after IDCC, BEFORE it has paid up, would be a good thing -- thankfully they have their cross-licensing arrangements with the other OEMs at least largely already set up, such that they would not be in a position to collect any incremental royalties even if they did
geesh . . .
Corp_Buyer --
not meaning to pick nits, but --
the MFL provisions are not the provisions operative or at stake here, in either sense, since Samsung's rates hadn't even been set in the first place yet, and since IDCC is now asserting the same rates against Samsung as it is against NOK in any event -- not sure the distinction you draw actually has meaning in re the MFLs -- what IDCC is directly invoking here are the actual licensing provisions themselves, which of course in this instance are the same for both Samsung and NOK
and we already know from Samsung itself (as disclosed by Samsung to IDCC, and then by IDCC to the world) that Samsung will so file to unseal unless there is an early resolution of its nascent contest of IDCC's assertion of the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/rates against it (again, such assertion by IDCC being by virtue of the licensing provisions applicable to Samsung, and neither involving nor being affected, deflected or limited by the MFL provisions applicable to Samsung) -- therefore, whatever might be proven by the filing of such a motion by Samsung, is already proven
btw -- REALLY like your scenario, LOL -- here's hoping things work out just like that; of course, I do expect those substantive results to develop, but I'm also prepared to be patient . . .
lastchoice -- those shares are still 'issued', but no longer 'outstanding' (for purposes of eps, etc.) -- now 'held in treasury' -- can either be left as is, 'in treasury', or can be 'cancelled' and thus returned to 'authorized and unissued' status
(BSNS WIRE) InterDigital Completes Two Million Share Repurchase
High-Tech Writers / Business Editors
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--IDCC--
InterDigital Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:IDCC),
a leading architect, designer and provider of wireless technology and
product platforms, today announced that it has completed its share
repurchase program previously announced in August 2003. The two
million share repurchase was accomplished over a six week period.
"The Board of Directors' decision to repurchase InterDigital
shares reflects confidence in the Company's future and expectations
for our continued growth," said Howard Goldberg, President and Chief
Executive Officer. "Our cash position has been substantially
strengthened this year through new patent license agreements and
receipt of recurring royalty payments associated with the solid
performance of our licensees worldwide. This strong cash position has
given us the flexibility to complete the share repurchase program at
attractive prices while continuing the pursuit of a range of
technology and product investments."
About InterDigital
InterDigital architects, designs and provides advanced wireless
technologies and products that drive voice and data communications.
The Company offers technology and product solutions for mainstream
wireless applications that deliver cost and time-to-market advantages
for its customers. InterDigital has a strong portfolio of patented
technologies covering 2G, 2.5G and 3G standards, which it licenses
worldwide. For more information, please visit InterDigital's web site:
www.interdigital.com. InterDigital is a registered trademark of
InterDigital Communications Corporation.
SOURCE: InterDigital Communications Corporation
CONTACT INFORMATION:
InterDigital Communications Corporation
Media Contact:
Dawn Goldstein, 610-878-7800
e-mail: dawn.goldstein@interdigital.com
or
Investor Contact:
Janet Point, 610-878-7800
e-mail: janet.point@interdigital.com
*** end of story ***
zit -- funny, I think that would have been a good thing for someone to have said to you (your recent posts have been ANYTHING but funny, imo -- just gross)
zit -- and the rest of us are tired of seeing posts like this from you
twelvebees -- re "Why don't we get an injunction against Samsung to prevent them from selling any 3G phones without a license?":
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1500973
OT: L2v -- '80 grad of that little law school in Cambridge, MA (actually, in terms of class size, one of the largest; that's why there are so many of us running around) -- wasn't drinking anything but some bottled water on ice, honest, LOL -- and thanks, glad you thought it was worth reading, I quite understand that that sort of thing is NOT the easiest read
rmarchma -- agreed -- even if Samsung did literally adopt and become subject to the entire NOK license in re the covered standards, Samsung is still right now every bit as subject to the trigger/rates being asserted by IDCC as is NOK, IDCC is still right now every bit as entitled to pursue said trigger/rates directly against Samsung as it is to pursue them directly against NOK, and Samsung's MFL rights are still of no direct relevance in the present context unless and until e.g. NOK gets a better (set of) rates than Samsung has gotten
loophole73 --
Samsung is making the same arguments as NOK because Samsung is in the same position as NOK -- Samsung is every bit as bound, right now, by the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/rates, as is NOK right now, whether or not NOK is exercising its right to contest said trigger/rates. IDCC is pursuing Samsung as well as NOK at this time because IDCC is every bit as entitled to pursue Samsung, right now, as it is to pursue NOK right now, whether or not NOK is exercising its right to contest the said trigger/rates. That Samsung has MFL rights under its license is simply not relevant to this baseline for analyzing and understanding the situation -- those MFL rights just do not, as such, even directly intersect this baseline, let alone alter it; all they are in the present context is a fallback for Samsung should it ever occur that Samsung gets locked into one set of rates and NOK somehow manages to secure some better rate(s).
Regardless of Samsung's MFL rights under its license, the 'when' in the basic proposition here, pursuant to the original Samsung arbitration, that 'Samsung is obligated to pay what NOK is obligated to pay, when NOK is obligated to pay it', is the date of IDCC's assertion of the trigger, NOT the date of the resolution of any exercise by NOK of its right to contest the validity of that trigger. If Samsung wants to contest the validity of that trigger, it also has, and in fact is in the early stages of exercising, the exact same right respectively to contest the validity of that trigger, as NOK has and is exercising; THAT is the applicable and appropriate means that IS available to Samsung to avoid anything like the "commercial disadvantage" to which you refer, rather than its MFL rights which are not directly relevant, not designed or intended to be applicable, in that regard. Again, NOK and Samsung are BOTH respectively in the SAME position relative to IDCC's assertion of its right, independently as to each of them, to select Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson as the trigger and thereby to designate the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson rates as the applicable rates, which right of IDCC arose for IDCC and was exercised by IDCC independently as to both NOK and Samsung respectively at the time of the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson settlement; and again, that Samsung has MFL rights under its license is just not to the point.
Ever since the original Samsung arbitration, Samsung has been tied to whatever rates it may turn out that NOK has negotiated (in the broad sense, including by virtue of an assertion of a trigger and corresponding rates by IDCC) -- and as it turns out those rates have, subject to NOK's and Samsung's respectively identical rights to contest, been set by means of IDCC's designation of those rates, pursuant to the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson settlement trigger, as being the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson rates. Whether Samsung has now or ever has had any ability to negotiate the NOK rate has been completely moot and beside the point since the original Samsung arbitration. So too has been whether Samsung is now or ever has been privy to the formation of any agreement between IDCC and NOK -- there is not now, and since the original Samsung arbitration there has never been, any "requisite privity of contract" such that Samsung must be a party to the NOK license in order for Samsung to be bound by the relevant trigger/rates provisions (and other relevant provisions) of the NOK license. And Samsung's having its own ability to directly contest the trigger/rates asserted by IDCC, using the same right that NOK has as respectively available to Samsung as a result of the original Samsung arbitration, proves that Samsung clearly is at no "severe disadvantage", and indeed is at no disadvantage whatsoever, relative to NOK with respect to the trigger/rates asserted by IDCC.
The key point here is this: If IDCC does NOT exercise its right to pursue its assertion of the trigger/rates directly against Samsung until AFTER the resolution of NOK's contest of the trigger/rates, where that resolution of NOK's contest, in and of itself, will NOT as such be binding on Samsung UNLESS, and ONLY unless, Samsung has at some point specifically separately agreed to be so bound, then Samsung will STILL be able, AT THAT TIME, to exercise its own right to contest, and thus to initiate its own whole contest of, the trigger/rates only THEN being pursued directly against Samsung by IDCC (such right of Samsung to directly contest with IDCC being the flip side of the coin to IDCC's right to pursue its assertion of the trigger/rates directly against Samsung, and being available for exercise by Samsung whenever it is that IDCC exercises its right to pursue its assertion of the trigger/rates directly against Samsung). This is precisely what finally leads me to conclude that IDCC, by exercising its right to pursue its assertion of the trigger/rates directly against Samsung NOW, rather than waiting to do so until the NOK contest of said trigger/rates has been resolved, is proceeding in EXACTLY the best way it can in this situation -- indeed, in any practical sense, is proceeding in the ONLY way it responsibly can, the way it simply MUST, in this situation.
Accordingly, in keeping with and in light of the foregoing (and sincerely, with all respect), your remaining argument along this line -- "IDCC entered into a licensing agreement with Nok without any input from Samsung in 1999. It is incumbent on IDCC to finish and complete the terms that were left blank in the license and they are presently working toward that goal via the terms of the IDCC/Nok licensing agreements. Samsung will asset that it was not a party to the negotiations in 1999 and should not be now. Samsung will argue that it has previously asserted its rights under its MFL clause and stands ready pay additional royalty based on the rate and terms that are determined under the Nok/IDCC agreement. The lawyers of Samsung can be 90% sure that the panel will see it their way. However, the other 10% dictates that they must pursue the same challenge plan as Nok in case the panel rejects the Samsung argument and proceeds with the arbitration based on the Ericy licenses." -- is imo beside the point and incorrect in its conclusion. To comment in one particular, looking at this for just a moment from Samsung's point of view, I strongly doubt that Samsung would agree that it has already completely waived (or in the alternative, that it has never had) its own independent right to directly contest the trigger/rates with IDCC, except only for continuing to be (or in the alternative, being) able to assert that IDCC cannot demand payment from Samsung until NOK's contest is resolved with rates finally set for and agreed to by (or forced on) NOK -- as Samsung necessarily would have to agree if it were taking the position that it simply "stands ready" to pay according to, but only at the time of, such a resolution. (Of course, and saying this only for the sake of clarity, I do agree with your last two sentences.)
[As with my earlier posts on this topic -- the foregoing leaves aside the added complexity introduced by the actual/threatened motions by NOK/Samsung to unseal the sealed ERICY case documents; and similarly the foregoing does not address any potential arguments from NOK or Samsung re the invalidity of any of IDCC's involved patents, or re the relevance of any such invalidities, if established, to this situation.]
There is, of course, also this -- if you are correct in your view, and I'm just lost with mine, why is IDCC proceeding in the manner that we know it is? Again, with all respect -- I take it you must really believe that HG and crew, as well as F&J, are that far off the mark here?
I am glad that I've felt compelled to respond to your posts on this topic, because in the process of more carefully working through my own thinking in order to do so, I have become more confident in IDCC's position and more comfortable with IDCC's approach than I already was (where obviously I liked IDCC's chances and approach with NOK and Samsung to begin with). And though of course I may end up having been mistaken in so believing, I do believe that we will ultimately end up looking back on this time and agreeing that the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson settlement indeed was after all the (yes, positive[!]) 'watershed event' IDCC proclaimed it to be at the time -- even taking into account the (mis-)adventures and challenges, hopefully (and I think probably) principally those being handled now, along the way.
MO
rmarchma -- all I meant is what you reiterated -- I think IDCC is standing on very solid ground in saying that Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson was the trigger and did set the rates for both NOK and Samsung in re TDMA-based 2(+)G; to me that is 'very real leverage' -- and then too, perhaps either or both of them might want to try to discuss 3G rates against this backdrop; IDCC's strength in the claims at hand can be 'very real leverage" on that level as well -- sorry my comment was less than clear (surely wasn't the first time I've been guilty of that, and no doubt won't be the last either, lol)
rmarchma -- good posts, solid analysis today, imo (hope you don't too much mind my saying so, lol) -- thanks
re NOK being "locked into" a negotiated rate, there is always the possibility that NOK could specifically agree to be permanently locked into such a rate, regardless of any lower rates subsequently agreed with others, as part of agreeing to that rate; but I agree that it would seem to be a stretch to expect any such eventuality
re IDCC going after Samsung now, rather than waiting for the outcome of the NOK process before doing so -- I think the key point is that Samsung very likely will not be bound, as such, by the outcome of the NOK process -- if left alone by IDCC until the resolution of the NOK process, Samsung could accomplish at least some (not insignificant) further delay, beyond the date of the resolution of the NOK process, by THEN forcing its own situation into the arbitration process/posture (by arguing against the validity of the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger, and thus of the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson rates, as applied to it [or whatever]); by going after Samsung now, IDCC is making sure the clock has begun running NOW on resolving Samsung, as well as on resolving NOK -- accordingly, it seems clear to me that going after Samsung NOW is EXACTLY the best way for IDCC to be proceeding -- sure, the resulting tactical situation is convoluted as heck; but hey, welcome to the wild and wacky world of licensing wireless IPRs for real recurring royalties, lol -- many have observed, correctly I think, that NOK and Samsung very likely are, at least to some extent, working together to put as much pressure as they can on IDCC in this situation; I submit that by going after BOTH of them NOW, IDCC is returning that fire and putting as much pressure as it can on BOTH of THEM in this situation -- so now we get to watch this three-way battle play out; fwiw, I for one like IDCC's chances of coming out of this three-way battle in very good shape indeed, as imo IDCC does have some very real leverage that it can, and will, apply against both of its much-larger opponents
(COMTEX) B: Dartmouth Intros Wireless VoIP
Sep 26, 2003 (Internet.com via COMTEX) -- Dartmouth College may be the smallest
of the Ivy League schools, but when it comes to wireless technology, it's a
giant.
The college, nestled in the Connecticut River Valley in Hanover, N.H., was one
of the first to deploy a campuswide wireless network a few years ago. Now, it's
adding voice to the mix.
Beginning Friday, Dartmouth will offer free softphones -- software that allows a
user to make and receive phone calls on a PC or PDA -- to incoming freshmen.
Calls will be routed over the school's new converged voice and data network, and
will be free to students.
The new voice over wireless LAN (VoWLAN) services will be phased in gradually,
said Bob Johnson, associate director for telecommunications at Dartmouth.
"Nobody has ever rolled this out to this extent before, so we really don't know
what the support issues are going to be," he said. "My assumption is that the
kids are a lot more computer-savvy than us old folk, and they're going to adapt
to the technology very easily, but we just want to make sure that we're prepared
to handle it."
The plans are to distribute the softphone clients in rounds of 200, with all
1000 first-year students expected to have the software in about two weeks.
Ultimately, the school intends to extend the service to the entire community of
13,000, including faculty and staff.
For the initial rollout, Dartmouth is using Cisco IP Softphones, a Windows-based
client. Bellevue, Wash.-based TeleSym is also developing clients for both Pocket
PC and Palm handheld devices, as well as for the Mac OS (Dartmouth has long had
a devoted community of Mac users; the popular Mac FTP program Fetch was
developed there).
The Pocket PC client will be available in two weeks, Johnson said, while the
softphone for the Palm OS will be ready by Thanksgiving. The Mac faithful will
have to wait until Christmas.
In addition to the softphones, Dartmouth will also offer Wi-Fi phones from
Vocera Communications . The Cupertino, Calif.-based startup's wearable badges
use speech recognition to allow for hands-free calling; users just say the name
of the person they're trying to reach -- no phone numbers required.
That's a huge advantage in a state such as New Hampshire, which has only one
area code, said Johnson. "Numbers are very tight in New Hampshire, so it's one
way to help us expand our DID (Direct Inward Dial) pool."
The Vocera badges will be available starting Oct. 1 for $15 a month.
Unfortunately they're only available in black, though. "The first thing people
pointed out to me was that they're all black," said Johnson. "Everybody said,
'Can we get different colors?' " (Green, anyone?)
VoWLAN's competitive edge
Aside from the budgetary motivations of deploying a wireless VoIP (voice over
Internet Protocol) system, the school saw other advantages, too. "There are
obvious cost savings as you move all of your communications onto a single
platform," Johnson said, "but it's also a competitive environment. We like to do
things that will differentiate the College."
The frigid New England winters were a factor, too. "We felt it would be a real
advantage for the kids to be able to communicate with their classmates no matter
where they were. Say you're sitting in the library in the middle of January and
it's two degrees below. If you have a friend coming over to the library, rather
than you having to walk back over and get a paper you forgot, you could call him
up and ask him to bring it."
The move to VoIP was closely tied to the school's recent decision not to charge
for long-distance phone calls. There were a couple of driving forces involved
there, Johnson said. "No. 1 was a true belief here that voice and Ethernet
connectivity were like a utility. It just needs to be part of the infrastructure
of the college. Coupled with that is the fact that a usage-based charging system
costs money, so as soon as you touch a bill you've got to increase your costs."
It turned out that the billing service was actually costing more than the calls.
"So it was kind of a no-brainer."
Plus, he said, "in the back of our mind we knew that we wanted to move to this
mobile IP .... You can just imagine the billing complexities trying to track who
made what call where. It would have gotten to be a mess."
Ultimately, the vision is that "voice will just be another application on the
network ... so that no matter where you are, any place, any time, you can have
voice communications. It doesn't have to be a telephone anymore."
Monitoring for quality
That vision is shared by a growing number of universities, hospitals and retail
stores embracing wireless VoIP, but there are still lingering concerns
preventing widespread adoption. Quality of service (QoS) is one.
Yet, Johnson said the voice quality of the softphones is excellent. "On campus,
voice quality is pretty much indistinguishable from a telephone call on a legacy
phone."
Of course, at the moment, the softphones are only available for desktops and
laptops. When the PDA clients are introduced, roaming issues, such as the
handoff from one wireless access point (AP) to another, will come into play.
"When you're re-associating, there's going to be some delay and clicking there,"
Johnson said. "But once it's re-associated the quality is fine."
As with a cell phone, he said, users have to be willing to give up some quality
for mobility. "I personally think that you may run into some delays or loss of
call quality as you're moving between subnets, but I think it'll be more than
made up for by what you're getting in mobility."
He also pointed out that compared with cell phone service, which is notoriously
bad in Hanover, the VoIP service is a good deal. "Let's face it, a cell phone is
going to cost you 20 plus cents a minute; this is free."
The Vocera badges are also high quality, he said, especially considering they
are essentially speakerphones. "The quality is significantly better than a
regular speakerphone ," he said.
The telecommunications department is already using the badges to reach support
staff out in the field. Johnson noted that with the badges they can reach
technicians in places they wouldn't otherwise be able to call them. For example,
"when they're in the basement, where a cell phone wouldn't work, you still have
802.11b coverage and we can reach them."
Johnson said that he expects the quality to improve when the school moves to a
new tri-mode (802.11 a/b/g) network in November. In addition to providing more
bandwith, he said the school is installing equipment to monitor QoS on the
network.
Of course, Dartmouth won't rest there. "The hope is right behind voice is
video," said Johnson. The school is rolling out pilots now using 802.11a to
stream video. The ability to run video over the wireless network could save the
school up to $1 million in upgrades to its aging cable TV system, he said.
In the meantime, the school will be carefully monitoring its voice over Wi-Fi
experiment. Courtesy of a grant from Cisco, David Kotz, a computer science
professor, as well as professors from the engineering school and staff from
Computing Services, will study the impact of the voice traffic on both the
wireless and wired networks.
The transition from data communications to voice communications will be a big
adjustment for many students, noted Rose Kraemer, a recent Dartmouth graduate.
"It isn't a very phone-oriented campus," she said.
Indeed, the school's e-mail system, known as BlitzMail (circa 1988), is an
integral part of students' lives. They check it constantly.
"It'll be interesting to see if the upperclassmen adopt it," she said. "The
seniors probably won't."
Perhaps a Big Green Vocera badge would sway them to the VoIP side.
By Vikki Lipset
URL: http://www.internet.com
Copyright 2003 Jupitermedia Corp. All rights reserved.
-0-
*** end of story ***
tucker -- OK -- so, what kind of lawsuit, exactly (being mindful of the arbitration clause in NOK's license, and that the judge has denied the motion to unseal)? -- just trying to understand . . .
tucker -- what kind of lawsuit, exactly?
ALL -- important updates from Janet, courtesy of teecee:
just spoke to janet...idc was indeed trying to enforce the ericy settlement on samsung...she said they wanted to get this news out asap....and will no longer wait for 10q's as they have in the past...she said they didnt think a cc was necessary....she said that some customers and an analyst expressed relief that this was happening now...instead of after any nokia decision..her and rich fagan were on a west coast road show when they got the news...
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00004&read=123372
also...she said they thought an 8k was necessary because they had indicated samsung could settle early...and now this was less of a possibility
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00004&read=123373
one more thing...they have structered the share buyback so there are no blackout periods...bottom line...they can buy if they wish
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00004&read=123375
i told her i thought it was actually good news...thats when she let on that several of her callers were relieved to hear the news
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CLB00004&read=123377
kikoboer -- for good reason it is VERY difficult to get a pre-judgment injunction, i.e., to get an injunction to SHUT DOWN the party you're suing BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN WON your case, a case you still could end up losing, after all -- that's just the way it is (and has been for a VERY long time, if you trace the roots of the present law back to old English law) -- think about it; of course we IDCCers might wish it were otherwise here, but I submit it makes pretty good sense -- just imagine the abuses of the legal process that could/would occur if it were otherwise . . .
loophole73 --
I say you're drawing a distinction that makes no difference, and accordingly I disagree with your conclusion -- if Samsung is bound to pay the same as NOK is bound to pay, and if NOK is bound to pay pursuant/according to the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/terms, then Samsung is just as well bound to pay pursuant/according to the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/terms, period -- it makes no difference to that whether or not, or in relative terms when, either of them chooses to fight IDCC's position that the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson terms are indeed a valid trigger under NOK's license; and similarly neither does the relative timing of IDCC's attempting to enforce that trigger/those terms against either or both of them make any difference to that
further re the distinction you draw: if Samsung were to concur with the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/terms, right now, before the NOK arbitration is concluded, and if NOK then were subsequently to win in its arbitration against the validity of that trigger/those terms, Samsung would at that time (assuming of course that Samsung had not previously specifically agreed to waive any or all of its related MFL rights) still be as fully entitled as it is now to assert its MFL rights relative to such victory by NOK (and thus, to the extent of NOK's victory, to receive back its payments theretofore made pursuant to/under the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/terms); THAT is what IS relevant about your distinction -- admittedly anything but insignificant, but not at all the same as what you're arguing -- to win over IDCC in its arbitration, Samsung must indeed fight the exact same battle, re the validity of the Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson trigger/terms under NOK's license, as NOK respectively must; that NOK has chosen to fight that trigger/those terms and the related arbitration has not yet been concluded will be completely irrelevant to Samsung's defense against IDCC in its respective arbitration (if and as things do indeed play out in that fashion and posture)
(obviously, the foregoing leaves aside the added complexity introduced by the actual/threatened motions by NOK/Samsung to unseal the sealed ERICY case documents; and similarly the foregoing does not address any potential arguments from NOK or Samsung re the invalidity of any of IDCC's involved patents, or re the relevance of any such invalidities, if established, to these matters)
MO
Centerline (and several others) --
you simply cannot get a pre-judgment injunction unless (among other very difficult-to-satisfy requirements) you can conclusively demonstrate that you will be irreparably harmed if you don't immediately get said pre-judgment injunction (for example, a classic case for a pre-judgment injunction would be a case where an infringing and much larger/more powerful competitor is producing/marketing the same product that your company is producing/marketing under/using your company's patented IPRs, and where your company definitely will literally be more or less immediately run out of business unless said infringing competitor is immediately enjoined from any further production/marketing of said product pending the final outcome of the case) -- under long-established and unquestionable legal precedent in all U.S. jurisdictions (and also most if not all significant non-U.S. juridictions [China??]), by definition you CANNOT satisfy this requirement for a pre-judgment injunction where your company is not threatened with imminent destruction and your case itself is in substance seeking only monetary damages/relief such as appropriate licensing royalties -- that's the end of that, period, end of sentence (this being simplified a bit, yes, but not in any way that alters what would be the proper analysis in any case where IDCC, which is after all in the business of licensing its IPRs to others, as v. being in the business of using its IPRs to the exclusion of all others, would be suing any manufacturer for infringing its IPRs)
(COMTEX) B: No Wi-Fi hotspots for Vodafone
Sep 26, 2003 (Datamonitor via COMTEX) -- Vodafone Group Plc [VOD], the world's
largest mobile operator, has decided it will stay out of the game to install
wireless LAN hotspots.
Rikkie Helms, director for UK-based Vodafone's mobile office team, said: "We
have taken the decision that we won't be delivering wireless hotspots, but will
support them using our billing capabilities using SMS messages that can bill to
other accounts."
Wi-Fi hotspots are springing up in locations such as coffee shops, airports and
railways stations, and, there will be more than 20 million hotspot users in
Europe by 2006, generating about $3.36 billion (E3 billion).
Many of Vodafone's rivals, such as Orange and T-Mobile, are actively engaged in
developing Wi-Fi hotspots. However, Helms said: "Companies such as T-Mobile that
are typically traditional telcos and fixed-line operators will provide Wi-Fi
hotspots. But we aim to focus on 3G services that we will launch in 2004, and
the support for Wi-Fi."
Helms pointed out that Vodafone has only installed one Wi-Fi hotspot in Germany.
Here the company has an ongoing relationship with Swisscom's German arm,
Debitel, [DBLG.DE] for 3G services. It had previously been thought that Vodafone
would use this tie-up to piggyback the Swisscom Eurospot network as a means to
gain Wi-Fi traction.
This article was based on material originally published by Computerwire.
Copyright (C) 2003 Datamonitor. All rights reserved
-0-
*** end of story ***
(BSNS WIRE) Nokia Takes the Next Step in Structuring Its Organization for Convergence and Growth
High-Tech Writers / Business Editors
HELSINKI, Finland--(BUSINESS WIRE)--NOK--
Nokia will change its organizational structure to
strengthen its focus on convergence, new mobility markets and growth.
The change is a natural next step following the reorganization of
Nokia Mobile Phones into nine business units in the spring of 2002.
The new structure consists of four business groups, corporate-wide
sales, marketing, logistics, manufacturing and technology units, as
well as a corporate strategy, development and research unit. The
changes will be in effect as of January 1, 2004.
With the changes, Nokia will address emerging new business areas
in the world of mobility, while continuing to build on its leadership
in mobile voice communication. Nokia's businesses will be organized in
four business groups, offering the best opportunities to meet the
unique dynamics of each business:
- Mobile Phones will offer a global range of highly competitive
mobile phones for large consumer segments. Olli-Pekka
Kallasvuo will be Executive Vice President and General Manager
of Mobile Phones.
- Multimedia will focus on bringing mobile multimedia to consumers
in the form of images, games, music and a range of other
attractive content. Anssi Vanjoki will be Executive Vice
President and General Manager of Multimedia.
- Networks will continue to offer leading-edge network technology
and related services, based on major wireless standards. Sari
Baldauf will be Executive Vice President and General Manager
of Networks.
- Enterprise Solutions, announced already in July, will offer
value to enterprises by providing a range of terminals and
seamless mobile connectivity solutions based on end-to-end
mobility architecture. General Manager of Enterprise Solutions
will be announced later.
Nokia will further enhance its competitiveness and efficiency by
establishing company-wide horizontal functions to work with all four
business groups. This will enable global care of customer relations
and channels, economies of scale in operations as well as better
horizontal leverage of technologies, business opportunities and common
support:
Sales and marketing, as well as manufacturing, logistics and
sourcing will be organized globally and headed by Pekka Ala-Pietila.
He will also continue as President of Nokia Corporation.
Pertti Korhonen, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer of Nokia, will be in charge of the technology unit. This unit
will be responsible for Nokia-wide technology management and
development and will deliver technologies and platforms for Nokia's
business groups and external customers.
Matti Alahuhta will be Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy
Officer with responsibility for corporate strategy and development,
research, venturing and business infrastructure.
Rick Simonson has been appointed Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer with the responsibility for finance and control,
treasury, investor relations, customer finance and risk management.
Rick Simonson and Hallstein Moerk, Senior Vice President, Human
Resources, have been appointed to the Nokia Group Executive Board as
new members. They will both report to Jorma Ollila, Chairman and CEO.
Jorma Ollila will continue to be Chairman of the Group Executive
Board, with Pekka Ala-Pietila, Matti Alahuhta, Sari Baldauf,
Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, Pertti Korhonen, Anssi Vanjoki and Veli
Sundback, Senior Vice President reporting to him.
J.T. Bergqvist, Senior Vice President and General Manager, will
continue to report to Sari Baldauf, and Yrjo Neuvo, Senior Vice
President and Technology Advisor, will continue to report to Matti
Alahuhta. They will both continue to be members in the Group Executive
Board. Lauri Kivinen, Senior Vice President, Communications, and
Ursula Ranin, Vice President and General Counsel, will continue to
report to Ollila.
"Mobility is one of the world's megatrends with a great
opportunity", says Jorma Ollila, Chairman and CEO of Nokia. "It will
change how businesses are run and it is our ongoing ambition to help
consumers and corporations in this transition. The industry and
corporate structures that were established a decade ago at the dawn of
mobile communications were very different from what is needed going
ahead. With our flexibility and the new structure we are truly in the
best position to bring the benefits of mobility to everyone and to
take the opportunity of the next growth wave in this industry", says
Ollila.
About Nokia
Nokia is the world leader in mobile communications. Backed by its
experience, innovation, user-friendliness and secure solutions, the
company has become the leading supplier of mobile phones and a leading
supplier of mobile, fixed broadband and IP networks. By adding
mobility to the Internet Nokia creates new opportunities for companies
and further enriches the daily lives of people. Nokia is a broadly
held company with listings on six major exchanges.
SOURCE: Nokia
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Nokia
Communications, +358 7180 34900
press.office@nokia.com
www.nokia.com
*** end of story ***
ziploc_1 -- that wasn't ed's statement, it was his cut and paste of the latest vitriol from Herb Greenberg of Realmoney.com
L2v -- if it gets hit hard enough, I'll be adding
ed_ferrari -- lemme guess -- that genius (. . .) Herb Greenberg again? dang it's gonna be particularly satisfying to watch him trying to pull his head, neck, chest AND arms out of his butt when these things get resolved . . .
MHendri33 -- also try this link for the more detailed view (5-minute):
http://iw.thomsonfn.com/iwatch/cgi-bin/iw_ticker?t=IDCC&range=0&mgp=0&i=2&hdate=&....