I'm not so sure:
"If that happened it would be on page one and when IDCC was proven innocent the retraction would be on page 99."
Why do you immediately assume that IDCC insiders would be found innocent? Let's look at some of the facts:
1) We don't know what was transpiring with the Nokia license negotiations immediately before the insider selling.
2) Nokia knows every word that transpired during those license negotiations and the day it was spoken.
3) Nokia has access to the insider selling records, same as us.
4) Nokia thought it was significant enough to detail the sales in their recent filing.
5) This one is not a fact, just speculation. I'm guessing the lawyer that told them it was o.k. to sell was not at the Nokia negotiations but formed his opinion by asking the negotiation team what went on during the negotiations. I can see Howard and the others squirming in their seats and trying to answer the questions in a way that will allow their general council to decide their insider trading window is still open.
Even if the attorney was present at all the license negotiations, that doesn't mean that he wasn't wrong when he told the insiders they could still sell.
Given the above four facts, facts, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about the innocence of the insiders. I don't think Nokia would even mention such serious charges unless specific things were said during license negotiations that would cause any selling after that date to be considered insider trading.
If insider trading did happen that would open the door for massive shareholder lawsuits. It's just one more risk of investing in a company that has a questionable history and timing when it comes to option grants and insider selling.
In my opinion, either they are guilty or they all just have the natural luck of the Irish. How else could you explain their uncanny ability to sell at the top?
Once
The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.
~ ~ ~ Josh Billings
