Pender discussed the statutory public interest factors in the investigation of Qualcomm’s first ITC complaint against Apple warrant further commentary. That’s why I will soon dedicate a blog post to the subject of inhowfar ALJ Pender’s public-interest analysis overlaps with key antitrust questions at issue in various other proceedings. But before we get there, I wanted to provide how much do utility patents cost procedural background.
Did not find what they wanted? Try here
The staff’s involvement is also meant to protect the public interest, but not in the sense of playing a “devil’s advocate” and arguing against an import ban. When the public interest is at issue, government agencies and the private stakeholders must also be able to chime in–and the parties are obviously listened to as part of this. Complainants are nowadays required to file a public interest statement along with each complaint. When a complaint is received, the ITC always solicits public interest statements from the general public. Responds can and often do file their statement at this stage, where it’s still voluntary. What’s relatively new is that the Commission decides on whether to delegate fact-finding related to the statutory public interest factors to the ALJ in charge of the investigation. ITC staff presenting its public-interest findings.
That procedural milestone is visualized by the rhombus at the bottom of page 1. The issuance of the RD in late September triggered further public-interest briefing in accordance with 19 C. The statute refers to government agencies, the general public, and the parties, but those submissions are on different schedules: the parties are obviously served the RD, and then have 30 days to comment on the public interest, while the clock technically begins to tick for the general public only after an official Commission notice appears in the Federal Register. The Commission now has to determine whether to review the ID. I hope that diagram, as well as my new smartphone patents battlemap, will prove useful to many of you as these processes unfold! 190 per NYSE:RHT share, to acquire the company that once started as a Linux distributor. I may very well talk about the strategic ramifications of the proposed transaction some other time, but the focus of this post is exclusively on what the stock market appears to think of the deal.
The article quoted a portfolio manager who said he didn’t want to bet on a deal that may be about a year away from closing, and IBM CEO Ginni Rometty as denying “any regulatory inhibitors,” which she obviously had to say. The time frame certainly affects demand, given that risk arbitrageurs could in the meantime use the money they would spend on RHT shares now to bet on a couple of other mergers, provided that those other deals would close more quickly and happen sequentially. The spread does indicate that merger-focused investors are far from convinced that the deal will materialize. The only explanation for why there isn’t stronger demand, at a higher price, is skepticism. Wall Street investors–to go through or fall through. Let’s start with the roughest and simplest approach, and then fine-tune it a little bit to take the time value of money into account. Theoretically it’s even greater since someone else might try to outbid IBM, but that doesn’t appear to be considered too likely by anyone.