All the kool-aid drinkers like to drool over the pending CAFC decision as if it were a slam dunk, but Nokia is doing absolutely nothing to resolve the case prior to the decision. Nokia calmly and confidently saw this case through the ITC, and WON!!! I don't think Nokia sees this case any different than they did back in 2008. I think Nokia believes it's a "Slam Dunk" for Nokia!
Nokia Oyj, the world's biggest mobile-phone maker, is ``less optimistic'' than investors that it will settle a patent dispute with InterDigital Inc., Chief Financial Officer Richard Simonson said.
``I'm a little less optimistic than the market implied yesterday,'' Simonson said today in an interview in New York. ``We always prefer to settle, but we will defend ourselves when the facts are with us.''
What is also interesting is that there are no signs that Huawei, ZTE, LG, or Nokia have any interest in settling this new IDCC ITC case. And that case includes a follow up patent to the previous Nokia case that the kool-aid drinkers believed would be the final nail in the coffin.
Since this new litigation is very early in the game, and there appears to be no interest in either acquiring IDCC or settling with IDCC,
I think you are looking at 2015 before you have a shot at seeing any significant revenue growth from this company.
"Are you a patent attorney. I know several that are invested based on their reading of the briefs and listening to the oral argument. I will stick with their opinion over yours."
Wait a minute. I thought you said you knew more about this case than I did. Yet you fail to respond to Nokia's lack of use of a spreading code in the power ramp, and use of slotted aloha. Tell me how that infringes IDCC? And now you say you are relying on other biased opinions. Yes, you are skewed. If you were not, you would not dismiss Nokia's case as you do. They have some very good arguments, for which the ITC and ALJ have agreed. Maybe you should stick around so that I can educate you further on your "investment". :D
Are you a patent attorney. I know several that are invested based on their reading of the briefs and listening to the oral argument. I will stick with their opinion over yours. I am still invested based on a number of things and no the money I have invested is not skewing my judgement as I can live without it. Are you going to post when the decision is reversed or go away?
""Spreading codes" is a generic term and Nokia is trying to play fast and loose as always."
How so? If NOKIA is not using a spreading codes in the power ramp procedure, why should they license a patent that uses spreading codes in the power ramp procedure? If Nokia uses a stair step method, why should they license a patent that does not disclose a stair step method? I think the problem is that you are predisposed to thinking that IDCC is ALWAYS in the right. I wonder if money has anything to do with skewing your opinion? Naahhhh! :D
"Spreading codes" is a generic term and Nokia is trying to play fast and loose as always. Nokia is so inept that they could be irrelevant in a few years. That is one company that deserves what they get. How many CFO's comment on the stock price of a small company they are in litigation with? They as shady as they come and will get what they deserve when the CAFC opinion comes out.
"I thought it was funny how the ALJ said spreading codes were essential but Nokia doesnt use them."
Spreading codes are essential to a CDMA system. It's just that Nokia does not use them in the power ramp up procedure. Interdigital's patent calls for the use of spreading codes in the power ramp up procedure.
One more thing, the panel makes the decision on the case just minutes after the oral argument and decides who will write it up. I am guessing that the oral arguments weigh heavily on the decision. Did the Nokia and ITC attorney not seeing eye to eye on the "facts" tell you there is room for a reversal? You seem to be blind to the facts, even more than some longs. Again, you must have some connection to one of the parties in this overall saga... Please respond as you have avoided this topic...
I think the term was "continuos" not constant. Anyway, I did read the briefs and I thought it was funny how the ALJ said spreading codes were essential but Nokia doesnt use them... This case was botched by the ITC and I have multiple patent attornies including Mr Dunner that agree me on the merits of the arguments made on appeal. All they need is ONE claim to reverse and remand. Are you betting against that? Again, what is the downside if the CAFC affirms? $35 maybe? That is if it comes out prior to a bid announcement. What is the upside with a revers and remand? $60+? What is the upside for a bid annoucement? $100+ and the downside? $35 maybe? Even if there is no buyout I am certain that some other relationship or license(s) will result. What is your theory hear? Make a bit on a short position or get hit by a train? I dont believe you even have a position, you are probably connected in some way to the bidders or even Nokia. Can you address this specifically? Are you short?
Also, if you spoke with Donald Dunner, good for you, but obviously you are getting a biased opinion. He did do a great job in the oral argument, and he SHOULD feel good about it. The Nokia attorney SHOULD have been frustrated because he got screwed out of sufficient time to state his case. But that does not change the facts of the case.
Again, many of you seem convinced that just because Dunner had a better performance than the ITC attorney and the Nokia Attorney, it automatically means Slam Dunk. I think Nuke John put you all into this line of thinking. It is absurd to think that the judges are focusing on this oral argument in their decision making process. Read the briefs, and your slam dunkiness rapidly dissipates.
I am not saying that IDCC has no chance of getting some sort of legal victory on a portion of the claims, but that unfortunately does not get you your billions.
Oh you did respond. And you did a much better job than anyone else has on this board. You at least took the time to listen to the oral arguments. Not as good as actually reading, but again, better than any of your fellow permabulls.
You don't really think that this case is going to be decided solely based on the oral hearing do you? I think you've become a victim of Nuke John Slam Dunk syndrome.
Read the briefs. Interdigital uses spreading codes for the power ramp up procedure. Nokia does not. Nokia uses a slotted Aloha, or stair step approach in the power ramp procedure. Interdigital patents use a constant ramp process.
The bottom line is that Nokia worked around the patents, and the ITC and ALJ confirmed this. The fact that IDCC obtained follow up patents to clarify their patents has no bearing on the CAFC decision. Hope this helps.
Jackass, I have things to do. I cant just site here waiting for your reply. I will take the opinion of the most experienced CAFC attorney with 30 years experience over yours any day. Dunner has his picked of cases and it does not make sense to take a losing case. As far as the facts I have listened to the same argument and the judges were clearly siding with Dunner. Did you like the ITC attorney? lol. The Nokia attorney was heard cursing the argument on his way out by a poster on IHUB. Again, you dont even have a clue as there are more than just spreading codes used. Did you notice that the Nokia and ITC attorney did not even agree on your "facts", and the patent office agreed by amending the patents in the case. Why not tell us how many share you are short so we can quantify your loss? You dont want to get into the facts as I understand this situation more than you do. What is the risk reward at this price for shorting the share? You are not smart enough to invest your own money. lol. If you dont respond in 20 minutes does that mean that you are afraid to talk "facts". lol