After much speculation - is anything come as a surprise anymore? - BCE Inc. has sold most of  its stake in CGI Group Inc. for C$859 million. So now what? Does BCE pay down debt, issue a special dividend to shareholders who have seen their shares do little over the past four years, or perhaps get really bold and buy Shaw Communications? In any event, BCE has an ever-growing war-chest to explore all or any of those options. Unless BCE does something dramatic such as acquire Shaw, the cash doesn't change much because BCE still faces the same strategic challenges: a declining local phone business amid competition from the cablecos and the Vonages/Skypes of the world, and a sluggish wireless business. Until BCE decides on what's next, the focus will continue to be slashing costs (a.ka. blocking and tackling) to protect the bottom line.

Research in Motion won another victory yesterday when the U.S. Patent and Trade Office rejected another of NTP's patents - the second of the five patents at the heart of NTP's dispute against RIM. The question, however, is whether the decision matters and/or whether Judge James Spencer will let it play a part in his decision over whether to impose an injunction next month that will stop sales of Blackberry devices and service in the U.S. Judge Spencer made it clear recently he's not paying any heed to decisions by the U.S. Patent Office even though RIM appears to be knocking down NTP's key patents on a regular basis. The question now is if Judget Spencer does impose an injunction, does RIM implement its mysterious "work-around" to maintain service and sales, and then patiently wait for the U.S. Patent Office to reject the rest of NTP's patents? Does RIM risk having an injunction imposed and delay reaching a settlement with NTP in the hope all of NTP's patents will be rejected? It seems like a huge game of chicken right now with both sides trying to see how they're willing to go. Stay tuned......
Update: TechDirt asks why the courts can't wait until the Patent Office finishes its examination of the NTP patents. I suspect it's because no one knows how long it will take, and the court don't want to injure the plaintiff (NTP).