Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JGoren who wrote (145891)	10/25/2006 8:31:52 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 152472

My key question is, will a negative ruling from the Federal court system influence the ITC judge? The ITC provides a fast track for a ruling and provides Q with a signficant lever against Nokia in '07. Without that pressure, I could see this dragging into '08. Slacker

To: JGoren who wrote (145891)	10/25/2006 9:39:07 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

The trial judge cannot prevent another appeal of his decision whether NOK's assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless. NOK would have an appeal as a matter of right, because it would raise de novo issues of whether the trial judge correctly applied the law in making that decision. You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Under 28 USC 1292(b), Rudi can prevent an appeal of an interlocutory order such as one granting or denying a motion to stay pending arbitration by not certifying the order for appeal. However, I failed to consider the Federal Arbitration Act, which permits appeals of interlocutory orders denying--but not of ones compelling--arbitration. It definitely trumps 28 USC 1292(b). The right to an appeal should Rudi deny arbitration is statutory, not because it raises de novo issues, as you suggest. The question would be whether a "wholly groundless" finding is tantamount to an order denying arbitration for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act, a question which I am not sure is addressed in the decision. It won't make any difference if a court of appeals says "no" because the trip to the court of appeals, which won't depend on a certification from Rudi, will take time. It took months in this case and the appeal was expedited. What a stupid decision. En banc reconsideration should be asked for, but the chances of getting it are slim and none. Bottom line is that if Rudi finds "wholly groundless", Nokia will appeal under the Arb. Act, a lack of Rudi's certification for appeal under 28 USC 1292(b) notwithstanding. More delay. If delay is the game, Nokia is ahead.