SSLANER's post
judge ruled nok could arbitrate.
I think we all now know that he was providing information and trying to be helpful. I appreciate that and thank him for wanting to share with the board. However the post was not as helpful as it could've been by taking another minute to post a bit of detail.
Had he posted
"I just heard from teecee (or 'someone at the court' if teecee did not want to be named) that the judge ruled that nok could arbitrate. This is all that I was told and I hope the legal folks here can explain what it means."
then we most would have had a better understanding. It would have been clear that it was not a joke and I believe the response would not have been hostile towards him. I don't think people were killing the messenger because he brought bad news, but they were frustrated because the news was incomplete (he's not a lawyer, so he can't be faulted because he didn't know to ask/tell about the injunction) and that there was no indication of his source. I'm sure the fact that it was bad news contributed to the angry tone of the responses.
There are a lot of people reading this board that have life changing amounts of money invested in IDCC. This is a critical time, so if you post factual information do try to give information on the source.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
