InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 164
Posts 6362
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/02/2003

Re: georgebailey post# 119445

Tuesday, 07/19/2005 11:07:17 AM

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:07:17 AM

Post# of 433025
George

I believe the Nok Delaware action was filed for the purpose of holding Ericy at bay. Nok had been after Ericy and SNE documents for several months without success. The arbitrators had the power to subpoena E/SNE to bring documents to the evidentiary hearing, but lacked authority to get them in advance. If you will recall, Nok made several allegations that E/SNE and IDCC based the settlement of their actions on a scheme to make Nok liable for far more royalty obligations. Since they did not have the documents and knowing that E/SNE could be a trigger for 3g, they filed the 3g patent challenge in order to make E/SNE look foolish in licensing 3g from IDCC. As it turns out, the Tribunal has declared that E/SNE is in fact a trigger. Further, the Final Award by the ICC indicates that the Nok claims of collusion by IDCC and E/SNE were not valid. IMO, so long as the judge allows the Nok Delaware action to exist, E/SNE will not license with IDCC. If E/SNE are companies of integrity, I believe a dismissal of the Nok action by the judge coupled with the joint efforts presently being made with GD in the MUOS program should stimulate E/SNE to enter into a 3g license with IDCC. This will present an even bigger problem for Nok down the road.

MO
loop

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent IDCC News