Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
6,824.66
(
0.62%
)
US TECH 100
24,407.60
(
0.00%
)
Dow Jones
48,185.80
(
0.58%
)
Brent Oil
95.23
(
0.82%
)
Bitcoin
71,781.17
(
-0.01%
)
News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 435780
Next 10
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

vg_future

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 14
Posts 2366
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/02/2003

vg_future

Re: revlis post# 198861

Tuesday, 12/04/2007 9:57:16 AM

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:57:16 AM

Post# of 435780
revlis, yes, I agree. It could something like what one of the IDCC's lawyer said about Samsung going in circles with the process (aribtrate, appeal, re-arbitrate, re-appeal...) in the SDNY hearing. That would lay it out flat for any untrained eyes (however, the judge can see through this even without IDCC's explanation).
These thieves should be made accountable for the IDCC's loss of business (or slowing down of licensing efforts) and the share price in turn.

-vg_future
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Detailed Quote
Recent IDCC News
More IDCC News