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.
MORE means - Will say anything you want for money, while looking the other party straight in the eye!
It's a given at this point in time that company could only posture this way, regardless of whether the ink is drying or not. IMO
Mickey, you could be right there, or else Nokia is wanting some sort of knock-off as a result of the TDD development agreement, as someone else has suggested might be the case. If so, I guess that's all part of the negotiations, and I have seen no mention of it in the proceedings. I have not been reading the transcripts for lack of time right now, but appreciate all those who have, and Revlis & My3 & Ghors as special mention.
I didn't realize until now that the motion to compel information about Qualcomm and STM Micro licenses was denied based on the fact that Nokia had already said that the rates IDCC was seeking was reasonable.
gejebr3, I remember his remarks as saying "we try not to" include LTE in our current license negotiations, but I don't know enough about each agreement to see if they had already licensed LTE to some licensees. I always wondered about this following his comment to know if we still have a blank slate w.r.t. LTE licensing?
I view IDCCs list of licensees as a list of anyone that has ever had a license, past or present. I don't think they publish a list of current contributing licensees, as it's a shingle you can hang out, and so they accentuate the positive by including all past licensees. I bet there are many other companies that do the same....
Nokia makes their own bed-let the sleep in it for awhile!!!
If he indeed stated that, I guess it's because the date for him to render his decision is a by date, verus an on date, so he is forwarning that he heard all the BS he needs to know how he is going to rule By that date. Knowing that IDCC has possibly been prejudiced by Nokia's delay tactics, it would be nice to receive an early favorable decision.
Nicmar, you might be able to patent definition 5a, and charge IDCC for their use if it.
I got lost after matrix complexities - could someone explain what that refers to?
Yes, usually just after options expiration
Mickey, I have always suspected this thought process is behind the delay in signing of Erricson and MOT. The MENS cabal is already broken and the trend is IDCCs friend. Why give away the farm for pennies on the dollar if there is an opportunity for a fundamental shift in value by getting a due justice for a change.
Mickey. You are right and I am glad too.
I suppose in the long-shot circumstance they came to an agreement today by jumping at what is likely a lowball offer from Nokia, that it would be anounce after after hours...not even sure that's wishful thinking because I would rather they stick to their guns till they get a decent rate.
The patents that InterDigital agreed to drop in the UK because they didn't want to risk an adverse ruling on the broader definition of essential were dropped with prejudice, meaning that IDCC can still stand up for those as being essential in future litigation - that was not really a loss in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
Nokia also dropped patents when the cross-hairs came back on them in InterDigital's counter. Doesn't that show Nokia as being guilty of all the same actions that they have accused IDCC of in their Lanham Act claim? Isn't that unclean hands?
Data,
They don't seem to have clean enough hands to prevail at Delaware. If IDCCs patents are not declared invalid at the ITC that may not be binding, but it sure doesn't have them going back to Delaware with anything but a storm cloud over their heads.
Do you think they have wracked up a Delaware win in any of their actions? - I don't.
I think people do not give credit to how many obstacles IDCC has overcome that were un-ananswered questions and came out on top already - such as domestic industry.
Sure, Nokia is huge, but their back is against the wall and they already pissed all over the judge to the point that courts have recognized and mentioned how IDCC has been prejudiced by Nokia's behavior in shopping for a better venue.
Their scorched earth tactics have been weathered and IDCC is still floating with plenty of cash to conclude this battle on their terms.
I think people do not give credit to how many obstacles IDCC has overcome that were un-ananswered questions and came out on top already - such as domestic industry.
Sure, Nokia is huge, but their back is against the wall and they already pissed all over the judge to the point that courts have recognized and mentioned how IDCC has been prejudiced by Nokia's behavior in shopping for a better venue.
Their scorched earth tactics have been weathered and IDCC is still floating with plenty of cash to conclude this battle on their terms.
I think if they go to Delaware, IDCC could have a rate established for only those four patents and that would be to IDCCs advantage - take it to the decision, and let IDCCs percentage increment piecemeal - only offering Nokia a license to those four patents.
After all - that is what is required by ETSI's own rules - to offer patents on an individual basis. It leave's the rest of IDCCs warchest yet-to-be valued. Why give away the whole chest for pennies - that is the leverage that IDCC has over Nokia, because Nokia is a manufacturer and IDCC is not. There is no need for IDCC to cross-license.
Separately, IDCC has patents that Nokia did not contest, and separately IDCC has a patent declared essential in the UK. By the end of the game IDCC will be valued like QCOM.
That is why in my opinion Nokia will settle - they can't affort to go against IDCC in a patent-for-patent piecemeal battle.
I'm surprised Nokia has not called Benvenuto Cellini as a key witness on prior art - even though he died in 1571 they could probably request to delay the trial awaiting his arrival.
Say, it might be hard for me to let go of my Kung Fu quotes, Nic
Sorry about the personal attack there, Nic. I had actually e-mailed Jimlur and requested him to delete the post, but I guess it's around dinner time. Since that didn't happen, my apology to you and Dmiller for the behavior analogy.
Granted that you would think IDCC would choose some of their better patents, but they have thousands of patents Nicmar, and as in the LTE example percentage-wise they are same standing as QCOM.
A victory for Nokia is on only the 4 patents in suit, and can even be appealed in other courts (also an option for Nokia while banned if the ruling goes against them), and companies have entered into convenience license covering ALL patents through a time certain. A victory for Nokia has no re-percussions to a convenience license terms In my opinion.
correction...i cannot imagine a patent being denied for a method and apparatus for time travel.
It seemed to me that those lucas documents listed five or six general approaches for possibly skinning a cat, in summary. I think when you get down to the details there is a lot more under the hood so-to-speak to get something to work, and that taking a broad swipe in a presentation and calling it anticipation is a stretch.
Are patents granted and valid for any of the other broad approaches mentioned in the lucas docuemnts? Does Nokia own any of them?
If Einstien proposed that time travel is possible due to a general theory, does that mean that the first person that comes up with a time traveling machine cannot be granted a patent on his invention, or family of inventions that provided a specific way to achieve time travel because it was already anticipated as being possible by Einstien? I know of no-one to date that has come up with a specific method and apparatus to achieve it! I cannot imagine a patent being designed on such an apparatus and method for time travel.
I personally believe this is the dog and pony show that Nokia is undertaking here.
In my quick review I was almost under the impression the library it was catalogued in was a personal company resource center owned by Nokia - most likely dedicated to stealing and taking credit for everyone elses work. Is there any way to prove when that document was catalogued in relation to the timing rules for prior art, was it publicly accessible and to what audience at that time, and how accurately may that be verified?
Now I could be entirely wrong about the library, and their system of record. And who am I to call Nokia a thief...I'll let the ITC decide. I think all the evidence will need to be considered before making a call, and even then I am not sure that mention of a broad general approach to solving a problem sufficiently brings into question a family of patents that takes something from a broad theory to practice because there are so many enterprising and unforeseen accomplishments and barrier resolutions that underly a working solution.
Now if the resolutions to barriers in the application of a broad theory were mentioned or anticipated, perhaps they have something to go on. I don't know, but anticipation is a weak defense in my opinion.
Because Nokia gave this to Samsung, an now has mentioned it a 2nd time does not make it a truth, or does not necessarily antipate the solution that IDCC patented - it's a piece of spaghetti being thrown at the wall, just as their work-around is reactive to the already committed historical act of stealing intellectual property.
It depends, if Nokia sells more phones, or historically has sold more phones then they should pay more money. Even a fixed fee negotiation brings into account the market share the licensee has on the front-end. I think Nokia should pay much more for a fixed fee contract, and if IDCC so chooses they could give them a better rate if it's a per unit license. But if you happen to have a decision that goes your way - it's not a requirement to give a volume discount - whoever thinks that's a legal requirement is wrong. It all depends on at what point they come to terms, and all bets are off if IDCC walks away with a favorable decision - they may actually get the valuation they were seeking all along, going forward.
Master Kan: Quickly as you can, snatch the pebble from my hand.
[Young Caine tries to do so and fails]
Master Kan: When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.
DMiller announces when Nicmar is leaving the thread....
DMiller announces when Nicmar is leaving the thread....
Master Po whips up on Grasshopper
Caine: Is it good to seek the past, Master Po? Does it not rob the present?
Master Po: If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present. But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future. The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past.
Back before the bubble, when options were given to employees the strick price was set above the current shareprice so there was actually an incentive for management to increase shareholder value, else they would expire worthless. What happened to common sense - now management rapes the shareholders openly and every chance they get.
Revlis, or anyone...can IDCC opt to grant Nokia a license only to the patents that the ITC makes a finding of infringement, gunning for a rate that leve Nokia does, then turn around and go after them for another set of patents or patent family?
Sounds like their commuting alot to China! ha
Is this each parties attempt to quash the others witnesses and testimony on the wildshot chance that once of the pieces of spagetti will stick to the wall?
Thanks to Oldog & Whizzer...I can say nothing really about the strength or weakness of their claim as I know little to nothing about what constitutes prior art. I appreciate the explanation!
Thanks olddog967, can the ITC that can make a determination that prior art existed and invalidate a patent, or must that be litigated in another court? I'm still confused on whether that affirmative defense can be resolved before the ITC?
my3sons87 I thought that the purpose of the ITC was not determine patent validity, but only infringement. If that's so, isn't Nokia bringing this witness into the wrong venue? They seem to have ongoing problems when it comes to finding the appropriate venue to resolve their issues.
Is the validity of the patent one of the affirmative defenses that is determined by the ITC? Perhaps, but I don't know-I didn't think so?
If the ITC is not the appropriate court to determine validity, then what purpose would be served by this witness. other than to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt like a few of the board's most frequent posters are bent on doing too
I guess it's saying we could drag out a battle over these two patents beyond the ITC, and challenge it's validity, but if the decision goes against Nokia on infringement, wouldn't they be barred from selling products as they fight this battle?
This doesn't appear to be a widely published article they are citing, and perhaps that's not a requirement, and seems to me they are taking this evidence to the wrong court, and it sure doesn't appear to be widely published-maybe they should use carbon-dating or just rub the document to see if the inks dry! They seem to be reaching if this is all they have to take before the ITC.
Wasn't there an ealier case that was stayed that this testimony might be more relevant to (It's a blur), and if Nokia is found to infringe, wouldn't they be barred from selling products in the U.S. while they take this evidence before the appropriate venu to evaluate validity of just one or two of the 4 patents involved in the case?
If this is all Nokia has to go on I think their game is up, as it only takes one of the patents to be infringed to come away with a win. Surely they are trying to chip away here.
Sometimes a company is judged by the strength of their enemies.
...kinda like in the move Jeremiah Johnson
It appears Time Domain is still around as a company, but technology strenght is now called UWB.
Time Domain is the world leader in ultra wideband (UWB) product development and provides solutions that enable enterprises to maximize productivity of their people and assets using a real-time location system (RTLS). Our products and professional services deliver "Precise Location for a World in Motion" to the healthcare, retail, and other vertical markets and are sold and supported through a network of certified channel partners. Time Domain's new Precision Location UWB System (PLUS) products are powered by the innovative PulsON® suite of UWB technologies, which are also available for strategic OEM integration. Time Domain is a privately-held corporation with major backing from Pharos Capital, its largest private equity investor.
Time Domain Corporation is a high technology product manufacturing company producing portfolio of high precision ultra wideband location, sensing, telemetry, and sense through the wall products. These products are aimed at Healthcare, Retail Marketing, Government Safety and Security and many other markets where the addition of precise location data provides high value location-based information to the enterprise. Used in commercial, industrial and military markets, these products provide value by automating processes with highly reliable location based data on people, processes and assets enabling businesses and governments to solve problems and create value in never before achievable ways.
Time Domain maintains a very strong intellectual property initiative, with a US patent count of 94. Time Domain's industry leading, multi-layered IP portfolio provides both technology protection and licensing opportunities for its partners. By licensing our extensive IP portfolio in specific fields of use, our partners enjoy a significant advantage over their competitors.
Maybe Microsofts wants InterDigital to be part of their model city in China, with at least one city in China paying royalties for their TD-SCDMA foundational patents!