It appears that by giving a no infirgnement that the judge thinks Nokia saves a couple of hundred million earning him the money if he is corrupt. By granting the patents as valid and enforeceable that puts the onerous on all others to prove they don't infringe these valid patents. I don't think the judge himself believes what he ruled. I think he did about all he could do to not make what almost appears as obvious to grey the matter of being corrupt. Just a opinion not a fact, but it still keeps smelling mighty fishy to me.
Sloane, I don't recall the exact context of this comment. Obviously I haven't been able to accurately read the ALJ from where I'm sitting, so I don't know why he would say that.
It would be interesting to ask him, if only we could.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
