Beamer, I feel that there is always room for negotiations. Just because management doesn't come out and tell you that they are in the process doesn't mean that it isn't going on. The 8k doesn't address negotiations at all. It plainly states that they haven't received word on an award or an amount if there is an award. Maybe the companies asked for a delay because they feel that they can get a deal done. I'm not sure if that would need to be announced.
Beamer re whether ICC can determine royalty amounts you said:
....Either Nokia will prevail: NO TRIGGER from Sony/Ericsson or IDCC will prevail: YES, Trigger...IF "yes", will the ICC set a RR? That is key...we MAY end up with a "Yes, Trigger" but no RR (although it seems unlikley to me that that would happen)"
Yes the ICC can determine royalty amounts, and most probably did after taking this long. A recent repost on this matter as follows:
Posted by: rmarchma In reply to: Corp_Buyer who wrote msg# 109404 Date:5/30/2005 4:37:37 PM Post #of 111150
Corp_Buyer re monetary damages and the arbitration panel you first quoted sjratty and then asked:
..."Another thing not often mentioned" is Nok's assertion that the arb panel, even if they do interpret the contract, cannot award monetary damages, as if they can only provide declaratory relief but not a monetary award, which seems absurd."
..."Any thoughts on what Nok's argument could possibly be in this regard?"
Nokia has admitted in their legal briefs dated April 28, 2005 that the arbitration panel can determine royalty amounts. From pages 8 and 9 of the legal document (or pages 14 and 15 of the PDF file) as follows:
..."Instead, Nokia and InterDigital agreed to a compromise that called for Nokia to make an initial payment and possibly pay additional amounts under certain conditions. A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an additional payment was whether one or more of a very limited and specified group of mobile telephone equipment manufacturers -including Ericcson- licensed Interdigital's patents. If all the necessary conditions were fulfilled, and if the parties could not agree on the amount of any additional payment, the compromise provided that an arbitration panel would determine how much, if anything, Nokia should pay."
I am not sure what Nokia might be referring to as "necessary, but not sufficient" in the above paragraph. IDCC has clearly stated that the only condition necessary to automatically trigger Nokia's rates was for a specified manufacturer to license with IDCC, and nothing else. Nokia also strongly implied that the reason that the arbitration was taking so long was because IDCC forced the arbitration panel to determine the royalty amounts from the same legal brief as follows:
..."After Nokia initiated the arbitration proceeding to obtain information, InterDigital escalated the proceedings by counterclaiming against Nokia for the massive royalties it promised its shareholders in a press release. As a result, a proceeding that would have been completed in a few months, has lasted more than a year, and the Tribunal still has not yet rendered a decision."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
