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.
Am I correct to assume from these posts that the call does not bring much confidence of a settlement before the ALJ rules?
If there is no FRAND defense, what is the basis of the "no violation" finding by the staff?
Thanks Data
What day did the ALJ ask the parties to report a settlement by?
Thanks
Nokia's strategy (or at least one possible one).......
Seems to me Nokia's strategy here may not be that complex. Right now, it has the luxury of having Samsung fight the battle of IDCC's patents (including their validity and FRAND issues). If Samsung wins, Nokia will latch itself onto that victory demanding more lower, if any, royalty rates - and it can do so without having to fight. If Samsung loses, then Nokia will not face an importation ban, and know that it may just have to pony up. In either case, it is to Nokia's advantage to let the Samsung case play out and see what happens. Thus, by seeking a petition en banc and then likely review from the U.S. Supreme Court, Nokia can attempt to stall for several more months (i.e., until the Samsung preliminary and perhaps final rulings are out). Of course, one big risk in that strategy is that Nokia is allowing Samsung a lot of control over its own destiny, a strategy which we have seen fail in the past in the S/SE matter (though, Nokia may have different arguments than Samsung so they may not be completely joined at the hip).
SAD NEWS - MSCHERE .....................
As many of you may know, I am MSCHERE (Marvin)'s son-in-law. It was with great sadness that I have to tell you that he passed away this morning. I felt compelled to post it on this board because this board played an important part in his life. Marvin created many wonderful friendships on this board, and found it a great place to exchange thoughts, ideas and passion for this stock and other things. I know that Marvin truly enjoyed speaking with many of you (including, but certainly not limited to, Revlis and JimLur) and admired and respected you not just as fellow investors, but as true friends. Indeed, we often joked how members of this board were a part of Marvin's "extended" family. I know that something will be missing from this board without his active participation and unyielding positive views - views that show his true underlying compassion and dedication. He will be greatly missed.
Guess that means no settlement.
what time does market close today - 1?
The ruling will very likely not be reversed before July 7.
If there is oral argument, which is unclear at this point, it will likely be in the July time frame, with another period of time after that before a ruling. While in many cases it can take 6 months to over a year for a Circuit Court to rule, I expect given the "expedited" status of this appeal, it will hopefully be late summer.
I'm surprised Samsung has not opposed it.
Quite frankly, if the parties are close to a settlement, not having the NY decision stayed may force them to wrap it up quicker.
New ITC Filing Entitled: "InterDigital's Motion to Limit Service of Settlement Reports." Perhaps Interdigital does not want Samsung knowing the status of its talks with Nokia or vice versa.
Order
ORDER: InterDigital shall file by April 11, 2008 a motion to stay the ITC Proceeding with respect to Nokia. Absent further court order, after April 11, 2008, InterDigital shall take no action in the ITC Proceeding against Nokia with respect to pursuing its claim for infringement. Nokia shall cooperate with InterDigital in requesting a stay of the ITC Proceeding as to Nokia. If the motion to stay the ITC Proceeding as to Nokia is denied, InterDigital shall then file a motion for termination of the ITC Proceeding as to Nokia. Nokia shall post a bond or other equivalent security in the amount of $500,000 under F.R.C.P. 65(c) by March 28, 2008. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 3/25/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
Depending on what it says.
what is pre market bid?
Is that based on all of your ITC experience.
why so little volume?
Jan 15 is a date artificially created by this Board, and its belief that the company is driven solely by RSU awards. Of course, while that may be true, a contract involves two parties, one of which may not be in that rush. The company said it hopes to have it done by the end of the first quarter (i.e., March 31), and thats the real pertinent date.
Your guess is as good as mine.
IDCC/NOK Delaware PACER....something is up. The parties submitted a sealed letter regarding Nokia's motion to stay, and now the Court entered a sealed Order granting the stay. While not unheard of, its not often you see a sealed Order, particularly in this circumstance. Let the conspiracy theories begin.
No idea.
Filing in Nokia/IDCC Delaware.......Its described as:
Letter to The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. from Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire regarding enclosing Joint Proposed Order regarding Nokia's Motion for Mandatory Stay (D.I. 226) [LETTER AND PROPOSED ORDER FILED UNDER SEAL] - re 228 Opening Brief in Support, 226 MOTION to Stay Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), 236 Answering Brief in Opposition, 240 Reply Brief. (Horwitz, Richard) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
It is a confirmation of the award, meaning IDCC can now levy to collect it. But, I would not be remotely surprised to see Samsung file a Notice of Appeal. By appealing, Samsung can by at least one year, at which time it can hope to win Samsung III, and then say that this whole case is moot (assuming, of course, it wins all of its arguments). Of course, I am not suggesting that Samsung will win all of those arguments...and the silver lining is the interest keeps on ticking (several million per year)
I have seen the Order and can confirm that the Judge confirmed the award.
Not true. Please do your research before providing false information. Nokia says it is entitled to arbitration because Nokia claims that it already has a royalty-free license to at least one of the patents at issue. I am not confident, at this point, that Nokia will get the stay. But, you should make sure you properly characterize the issue.
If true I'd be interested in talking to Teecee and investigating more.
Today hits a new-low in the recent IDCC saga....this is the opposite of the much touted "watershed" events.
We're approaching a point where even a major 3g license will only (hopefully) get us back to where we were just 6 months ago.
I too am cautiously encouraged by the transcript. The judge, at least as of the hearing, was inclined to rule in IDCC's favor...subject to re-reading the collateral estoppel issue. The stay is a closer call, but I think it tips in our favor.
Where's the buyback? No volume. No gains.
Hearing..........
I fully expect that the Court - whether from the bench or in writing - will issue a stay pending the ruling from Samsung 3.
It tells me that you saw a stock with 97% institutional holdings that hit a 52 week low.
Please dont make statements like that without having any basis in fact.
Not uncommon for there to be numerous, long extensions around the holidays. Things often slow down considerably from late november until early january.
Still no real volume.
The buyback will hopefully stop the bleeding from the low volume.
THe problem is simple...no buyers of any significance.
Timing wise, the judge split the baby. We lose some on Samsung, gain some on Nokia. Strategically, I'm not sure its a win. Now, rather than facing Samsung's attorneys alone on the validity issue, we face two sets of legal teams who will all be attacking the same patents. I'd rather win with Samsung, and then tell the Nokia court that hte patents have already been upheld as valid. Always better to fight one set of legal teams than two.
Wouldnt make much of the fact that the court took a day or two break from the trial. Given the length of the trial, the court is going to need to take breaks to attend to other issues from time to time.