InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

Corp_Buyer

01/02/05 3:24 PM

#88795 RE: longball #88793

Longball- There may be several "outs" for NOK other than the trigger issue:

http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4699511

Of all the potential "outs" in the Nok license, the trigger issue seems to be the most binary and also the most favorable to IDCC.

I truly hope our Nok win is not a too little, too late, wimper like the Ericy settlement after 10 years that management quickly offset with increased spending and new bonuses.

So, while I expect IDCC to win the Nok arbitration, given our management issues ("outright greed" and other issues) and our very poor track record in litigation (Mot, Ericy, and Nok's successful post-facto intervention in the Ericy court case), a "win" by IDCC in the Nok arbitration may not be the big bang, windfall, justice prevails, stock price moonshot, watershed event that so many (including me) hope.

All JMHO,
Corp_Buyer


icon url

olddog967

01/02/05 3:30 PM

#88797 RE: longball #88793

longball: Apparently the main reason Nokia is claiming that Sony-Ericsson is not a trigger is that it was not specifically named as a trigger in the license.

There appears to be no question that Ericsson was a named trigger; however Sony-Ericsson could not have been named as it was not in existence at the time the Nokia license was signed.

After the Nokia license was signed, Ericsson ran into problems with their mobile phone business. As a way to correct the situation they transferred their mobile phone business to a new company that was jointly established with Sony. The question then becomes, is the new Sony-Ericsson an appropriate trigger?

It is assumed that in naming the triggers in the license, the usual legal phrasing "and their successors and assigns" was included. According to our legal experts this would cover Sony-Ericsson as being an appropriate trigger. We will just have to see what the arbitration panel thinks