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.
Loop, I have always wondered what constitutes irreparable harm? It seems that the legal system is blind to time being a recognized component because it's a given the wheels of justice turn slowly. Could you, or one of the other lawyers elaborate on what holds water and what does not with respect to arguing irreparable harm.
It seems that it is a no-brainer that we could make this argument and win that argument. I have seen no indication that we even pursued that course, or stated a case of irreparable harm - otherwise if we did, someone did a poor job of illustrating the scorched earth tactics that we have been vicimized by.
give it a few mins...DMILLER is dying to tell you that
Sloan6 - I agree with you, but feel everyone will wait on the briefing schedule before anyone makes another move.
Wonder how much of that volume spike was stop-loss orders being executed?
There are folks that are buying into this over-reaction. Perhaps I'm the only one, but seems like bargain shopping to me. I picked up some at 17.99.
My3sons, I wish I could say it was because Nokia wanted it that way, but secrecy has always been the IDCC mode of operande, much to the consternation of shareholders and wall street alike.
Loop, I had no idea this was a possible result. The best possibility I have heard yet - I would love to see it play out this way. Nice thoughts to start out the day with.
LTE IPR Agreement: What About All the Others?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/72312-lte-ipr-agreement-what-about-all-the-others?source=yahoo
By Dean Bulbey, of Seeking Alpha
Alcatel-Lucent (ALU), Ericsson (ERIC), NEC (NIPNY), NextWave Wireless (WAVE), Nokia (NOK), Nokia Siemens Networks and Sony Ericsson (SNE) have collectively agreed to a framework which aims to limit LTE (Long Term Evolution) patent royalties to single-digit % of handset sales value.
OK, that's clearly a worthy goal.... but it does rather beg the question of what % of the total necessary IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) they own between them. I'd guess it's a fairly good chunk, but there are a few obvious missing representatives, notably all the chipset & RF component suppliers like Qualcomm (QCOM), TI (TXN), Intel (INTC), Broadcom (BRCM) and so forth. Then there's the various IPR licencing specialists like Interdigital (IDCC), plus presumably various of the operators have invented some of the clever stuff in their own labs. Also missing from the roster are Motorola (MOT), Nortel (NT), Huawei and most of the other Asian vendors.
This is, however, definitely a good ploy in term of getting the Next Gen Mobile Network Alliance [NGMN] to further favour LTE over alternative candidate technologies. It will be interesting to see if the WiMAX community does something similar.... and if the WiMAX and LTE groups (which overlap quite a lot) can find it in their hearts to cross-licence things where necessary. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Of all that I read today, the best and most telling of everything came from Samsung's reply: "NO COMMENT". I couldn't sum it up in less than 3 words - "They are screwed!"
To me, if IDCC who has already referenced that paid-for report in their countersuit against Nokia can prove that was not an independent report - they have proved fraudulent and criminal activity, and it's mail fraud too!
Excuse me, the side-by-side is pleadings and arguments against QCOM up next to all their own contradictory pleadings. Now a 3rd column needs to be added that shows a collection of their posturing statements where they are rounding up a posse', electing themselves as sherrif, and claiming what they are gonna shove down the throats of inventors, and along in that column someone might include that paid-for "independent" study that they espoused all over the globe (Fraud - and internet mail fraud) to falsely build up the value of their own portfolio so that while they go around capping everyone elses rates, they were still gonna try and win the same old royalty game for themselves.
With Samsung guilty of slush funds, and bribery, and many criminal acts, and now in bed with Nokia - wouldn't it be great if a smoking gun came forward that could give rise to a valid RICO act claim that would drag them both onto the carpet.
To me, the side-by-side illustration of their public policy on FRAND versus their lawyer's arguments on FRAND running exactly contrary is a Fraud. They are Fraudulently representing a position to squash recognition of IPR across the industry, and paying lawyers to argue exactly the opposite in trying to squeeze royalties out of others.
It should be one or the other - isn't this Fraud, or following a doctrine of Unclean Hands?
They are on record publicly posturing one view, and legally arguing the opposing view to gain revenue from their own patents, plus they have hired a firm to write a supposedly independent study to deceive, and have referenced that study all over the internet and the globe to falsely build up the value of their own patent portfolio.
Somewhere in that behavior there seems to be a criminal act if not numerous ones.
In a jury trial, that side-by-side presentation should yield at least 4.5 percent for IDCCs contribution, and at least 6 percent for a pissed off jury if everyone on the jury has a lick of common sense.
Ok, because after her first showing, if it went to someone else I would actually feel more warm and fuzzy about the outcome.
Basic psychology says that once you buy a car and the color is Red, that from that point on your mind will begin to rationalize how nice the color Red is.
Based on this proven human behavioral pattern, I question that the process of Remanding something back is going to result in a different outcome, but would instead just motivate her to try very hard to justify her original ruling, and then pour us out.
That's why I regretted that whizzer's point about dismissing the case based on the pending SDNY case, because it would at least give her another way out that saves face - dismissal.
Let's face it, it it's remanded back she still has motivation to save face on her ruling from the bench.
OT: Yep! Back in my prime...but as Toby Kieth would say, "I can still do(hit) it once as good as I ever could!"
It's too bad my first name's Fred and born in 62.
whizzeresq,
What does it mean to remand it to her? Does it end up going back through her docket again for her to rule again under further scrutiny?
Thanks for helping out with the legal jargon...
Wanda002,
IDCC has been distancing itself from arbitration. I personally think that the termination of the 3G agreement with Nokia in their prior settlement was an effort to do this, and Nokia is trying to find ways to back-door arbitration back into the equation.
Many folks agree with you, but time is also a factor, and there is a time value of money. IDCC is in alot better position going into 3G to collect from everyone, and if you have been around awhile longer you might feel pretty good about their relative position of strength, there will come a when the delays being Nokia or Samsung closer to an actual trial that fear and dread will take hold of them that they will actually have to pay for what they have stolen. I think we're close to that turning point.
It seems that Samsung could spin a license with IDCC as a dramatic shift in their policies and attribute it to a reformed approach of doing business. That might actually provide the results that the Chairman is claiming they are going to embrace in a way that the market would immediately recognize as an honest business dealing - for a change!
Loophole,
It appears that this CAP effort led by groups of people is price fixing. But when challenged with this, the reply is that no agreements have been made in secret (that can so far be proven)it's all done publicly - therefore it is not price fixing.
Even when attempted publicly, it seems to me that they should not be able to prevent someone that does not agree to the manufacturers definition of FRAND from participating in a standards process, and charging what they feel is a reasonable rate determined by a judge and/or jury, as it has always been done historically.
What am I missing, and does price fixing have to have a secrecy component to it? Going public with a crooked activity doesn't make it legal does it? Seems that by taking their arrogance out into the open that corporations are essentially becoming dictators of policy, and openly classifying inventors as thier own slave labor camps to be thown only crumbs.
Thanks Jeff for the correction - still seems like price fixing to me.
Just because you state it publicly doesn't mean it's not price fixing, it just means that Nokia thinks they can call the shots and dictate what the laws of the land are going to be.
It's obvious that inventors need to group organize themselves into a lobbying forum that also carries some weight and a collective pocketbook to back it up. What's got outta hand is that they have squeezed the inventors to the point that they have too much money rolling in off those inventions, and now they are simply trying to nail the casket shut.
My3sons, the way they have it worded, the aggrete dollar amount for ALL contributors would remain in the single digits - Aren't they trying to say that in total they will not exceed $9.99 in total royalties paid for a notebook for the underlying technology within it.
Look what happend to OldDog - internet turned him into Commander Data - for the trekies. It's sort of a reverse Pinnocio story that I really like tellin, ha.
Whiz, just please don't underestimate yourself. Even Shay comes in after some of that history, and WM has distanced himself from the front line in his position as CEO - by his own admission.
I personally think they would have jumped all over this if they knew about it.
It would be painful not to hear from them, but I have to weigh that against how busy I will be spending all the money they brought home to papa - and of course, I would make a special trip to rejoice with them and say thanks to them at the Houston 100 party.
whiz, I had not read dmillers post, and I guess he was thinking similarly. I think that neither you or Loop give yourselves the credit you deserve, or truly recognize the insights you have gained having followed closely our litigation history across multiple legal teams.
It seems we should never assume that our current legal team knows this history like either of you. I just wish there was a way to reach out, or for IDCC to put the both of you on their payroll.
Whizz and Loop,
With all the activism on the board, such as folks contacting senators and what not, I wish you, Loop, and Jimlur somehow had an avenue to give our legal team this tidbit that perhaps they needed to have this case dismissed. It would be like throwing yourself and all shareholders a golden bone.
I guess this is really the first instance where I feel discouraged at an oversight of our lawyers because they reach out so much across all these other cases cited, but it seems apparent the key that may have put this entire issue behind us was right under their nose in our own prosecution history with the devil himself.
It's a shame to see your talents and insights limited to calling it from the armchair when such insight could have been the turnaround, or grandslam that is needed at this crossroads.
No blame to you, I'm forever grateful to you, but just wish the legal team had their eyes and ears open to the board discussions, or that there was a conduit in a circumstance like this for someone like you and loop in this day and age where everyone is an e-mail address or phone number away, that such information could have been shared with our legal representatives for the good of the cause.
The uncertainties that make it appear that way right now will possibly be resolved next week, so we just have to suffer through another week and see what hand Nokia is still holding onto.
It's all about them running with the joker that judge Batts dealt to them and posturing for either negotiating leverage or else they are hell bent on delay.
Would you trust them farther than you can throw a rock?
I'm no lawyer (obvious in most of my looney posts), but I would be surprised to see them grant reporting exclusively to the ALJ. However, in light of Nokia's forum shopping and disregard for the ALJ's jurisdiction to decide the matter of arbitration, I do see it as a valid request (first, or the alternative) that should now be strongly considered so as not to further prejudice IDCC.
I would very much like for the ALJ to take some strong position following Nokia's ploy to step to the sidelines in protecting IDCC from a continuance of a consolidated 2 against 1 battle - they had their chance, and one stabbed the other in the back in blatant disregard of the ALJs decision and in challenge to their jurisdiction, so send them each off to a separate corner for a timeout please.
In isolation Samsung has no more plays left. Let Nokia reflect on the original prejudice they sought to avoid (a predetermined Samsung case over largely the same issues), and let them stew over the actions they took that was perceived by them to be a win.
IDCC would be prejudiced now by a further delay in the Samsung proceedings, so let's conclude this with Samsung and let Nokia have a firm idea of the outcome when they circle back around for a later conclusion.
To me, if even one of the patents ultimately made arbitration (even by fluke, the 1 FDD patent developed during the TDD development agreement time frame is the only one that should have ever been considered for arbitration (then rejected by the panel), and the other three came right back to the ALJ with Samsung already concluded, then at least IDCC has not been prejudiced by Nokia's ploy.
I personally feel that for the ALJ to proceed against Nokia without IDCCs continued input would be prejudice against IDCC (debatable) - a higher risk (no representation but the ALJ) versus speedier resolution trade-off.
The speculation earlier today was that IDCC is trying to keep the Samsung settlement report exclusive to Samsung and the ALJ, and the Nokia settlement report exclusive to Nokia and the ALJ.
The Nokia objection discloses this approach as the assumed secondary "in the alternative" approach, but IDCC first and foremost would like to provide the settlement reporting directly and exclusively to the ALJ so they can provide "additional details" they otherwise could not state.
That is my take on what IDCC has requested.
Revlis, I wonder if the bargaining they refer to is their lobbying, their presidential campaign contributions, and the behind the scenes corruption from the lobbying arm of their law firm?
After all, the ALJ had already determined that they had given up any inherent rights to arbitration with IDCC by their committed pursuit of scorched-earth litigation against IDCC instead of taking the arbitration route.
Sometime's I believe certain statements are made open-endedly to flaunt their arrogance and show just how low they will stoop to abuse the legal system. I wish someday someone could draw this real bargaining out in the open for all to see who has painted faces.
I think most agree we have the winning hand for the end game. The frustration is with the legal system, and Nokia getting away with more delay tactics. Getting it transferred back to 2nd circuit - not such a biggie, but again further delay. It just seems that we entered uncharted territory "the twilight zone" because judge Batts failed to use her brain, and we haven't quite come back to the right dimension yet.
I wish the Rooster would crow
It's quite clear now that Nokia is going to milk this one for all it's worth having gained a move on the chess board. So now it's back to reading the tea leaves to see how the ALJ views Nokia's forum shopping, and whether they are willing and able to do something about it.
Things could still play out very fast next week, so a pleasant surprise is not out of the question.
For the life of me I would not want to be Samsung going into the hearing with their handful of weak affirmative defenses.
So now we have both an honorable company and a responsible business partner not paying us for 3G. Let's get our adjectives straight! How about Crooked, Deceiptful, Arrogant, and Untrustworthy...add all the others you like, but it's a start.
Yes, thanks goodness the lawyer put those words in her mouth, because originally she blurted out 4/1.
Judge Batts must be moonlighting as a 2nd job
What is discouraging is that this judge provided no basis for the conclusion - surely there is some mimimum acceptable standard of communication that should be provided to her victims, and to disclose to those on the appellate review panel what the basis of her reasoning was that brought her to this conclusion.
My thinking is the NXP has been acquired because the technology package has value to STM, although, could be their manufacturing capabilities - we don't know yet. But with products built around NXPs offerings I don't see how STM could suddenly begin replacing NXPs chip offering with their own anytime soon...somewhere in that next generation product offering I'm sure it will get interesting to see if we have a new licensee, or lost a great opportunity to acquisition by a non-licensed competitor.
I'm not going up against Data's industry expertise, just trying to use a layman's common sense, and hopefully perhaps it will not turn out to be a loss.
When I think about the high visibility poker games surrounding QCOM/NOKIA, and Nokia/InterDigital, I guess I view the acquisition route as a valid path to get IDCCs negotiating team into a company like STM, or INTEL, or CISCO to discuss the extension of a current license as being much more low key, and also much easier than a cold caller saying that you owe us money.
Seems way to early to tell how the technology in their offerings will play out. Our license will carry over if the NXP chipsets continue to be offered, so it could be a door opening rather than one shutting. It seems there will have to be communication now between STM and IDCC...wish I could truthfully say never a dull moment with IDCC
Dndodd, I am not an accountant, but I work with accountant's, and cost accountants daily leading a financials team that implements and supports the SAP software package that many large and mid-sized corporations utilize. Quite often I get pulled in to deliver auditor reporting requests that do not follow standard reporting available. Those requests are often quite immediate and high priority in nature. So it's just an opinion.
I view the cancellation of the ESPP as procedural accounting paperwork and happening off the chess board. While year-end and quarter-end are always normal times to see activity like this due to external reporting requirements, follow-on activities are often driven by either what auditors are looking at, or if by what is suspected to be something they might give attention to. It's just keeping the house in order IMO.