Sjratty
So, let us see. Nok is a rational company conducting a cost-benefit analysis according to you. Rationalization has ruined the legal profession over the years and your post is a prime example.
There is nothing rational about entering into a contract with a company of less bargaining power and later revealing that you never expected to have to perform under the terms anyway.
There is nothing rational about agreeing to be bound by the arbitration process, losing and appealing because you do not know what the definition of "is" is.
As I said in an earlier post, if Nok has the money, some flannel mouth will take up their cause.
The American Bar Association is very concerned with the lack of business ethics that have evolved through the rationalization process. In fact, they are tinkering with the attorney/client privilege. Some legal scholars are recommending that if a lawyer knows that a client intends to continue a course of fraudulent conduct, he/she must withdraw loudly from the representation. The term loudly means that he/she must contact each and every person or entity who may be affected by the intended acts of their client. This is an extremely radical departure from the attorney/client privilege and many doubt that change will go to this extent. However, it does show the seriousness of the state of business ethics today and the deep concern of the regulators of lawyer conduct.
I think Nok is taking total advantage of the system. Their behavior is disruptive to world wide commerce. There is a fine line between being a tough business person and being a cheat and a fraud.
I personally find Nok's actions to be those of an irrational company. The only cost-analysis they have performed was to enter into an agreement in bad faith from the start and engage in a continued course of action for six years. Making representations that you do not intend honor is not a proper function in cost analyzing. Allowing another company to foot all of the expenses in challenging the patents of another and untimely intervening on the basis of half truths is not a proper function of cost analyzing. Publicly summoning other large companies to join in acts of restraining trade against smaller companies is not a proper function of cost analyzing. Using the IPR of others as a licensee with no intention of performing the obligations called for in the license is not a proper function of cost analyzing. Finally, entering into an appeals process solely for the purpose of injuring the financial status of another company with the intent to drive it out of business is not a proper function of cost analyzing.
Sorry for the rant, but I am so sick and tired of the lack of finality in the legal arena I have to type to keep from throwing up.
MO
loop
AI
