They may pop a little with an adverse decission. The speculation will be over and from the looks of Nok's slim to none activity in N. America they might just say the heck with it until they can get their phone lineup together sometime in the year 2025.

I am not sure if they take FRAND into account or not just alluding to the fact it was brought up early in the ITC case by Samsung and Nok and their is some historical info on the records concerning rates from all the partys' in question.

I follow you but let's say IDCC was offering FRAND from the beginning which I think they showed by providing rates of all relevant existing licenses. Additionally,IDCC brought into play Nok's licensing rates for comparison. Nok's rates I think makes things interesting. Nok's litigous nature I would say has harmed their negotiating position as I perceived they took it a step to far ala the CAFC. Also let me add that I don't think FRAND speaks to discounts based on total shipments another ploy to try and further weaken the competition. When you take into account the rates Nok is charging along with AAPL assault on their IPR and the CAFC I would say there is going to be soon a point where many truths come out that show Nok is dealing from a corrupt deck. Will Nok stop with the antics before all comes to light. If all where weighted and stacked correctly according to IPR ownership I believe you would find there is a lot of BS between the companies and IDCC is not close to the top in spreading BS.

I am not in a position to argue. I hope it comes to pass at are near that amount.

Somebody mentioned the possibility of 800M being in play.eom

I think the FRAND argument only goes so for in the court. IDCC will be able to provide a litigious history by Nok and some very poignant words by judges.

They settled with QCOM and the cost owed was much higher than what they owe IDCC. The ramifications of losing one market is very detrimental to a company. The evidence will have direct or indirect implications in other countries. IDCC can use a win at the ITC and gain momentum in other contries. Maybe not a clear cut win in all countries but if you start to trim down the global market for a company it can really start to hurt and provide competitors more than a leg up. Any BoD will look at the current status from a global prospective and potential downstream effect. It is definitely chess at the highest level and the options available to Nok if they lose at the CAFC limits how many moves are left in the game.

On my drive home from work today some ideas or questions came to mind concerning IDCC.

First the ZTE press release kinda reminds of the press release out of South Korea before IDCC licensed many of the Korean Companies.

Second the AAPL vs Nok things makes me wonder if IDCC is caught in the middle as a pawn. If so, Nok could be off their rocker and still pursue scorched earth tatics even after the CAFC ruling.

You have to believe Mot and Ericy has to be thinking of coming off from under Nok's cloak after they get punched in the face by the CAFC.

LG anniversary date

The compensation 8K back in Dec, what was the reasoning IMHO to what seems like over and above the normal perks.

Maybe 400!eom

bid 50.21 ask 50.50.eom

last 50.11. Excuse me 50.21.eom

That wouldn't be great. I would not have enough time to buy more shares before the price hits $350.lol

I am going to buy VZ iPhone.eom

IMHO there is some IPR that can't be worked around unless you change the fundamental system.

I follow your point that within the standard body things constantly change that may or may not circumvent certain patents as the standard evolves. Got it, however if a patent is essential I would suspect it would be fundamental and in this case to UTMS and other aspects of the technology that would make it hard to change without causing a shockwave of changes to unattended areas. I am not saying this is true with IDCC patents in question but IMHO the makeup of a cellular system can't be segmented without considering the consequences of trying to move away from an essential patent.

Data Rox that change IMHO doesn't effect the necessity or change the procedure as for as IDCC's patents is concern. IDCC's patents in question describes the procedure for power ramp up is base on the short code so that their is no power overshoot causing interference. The change below is only speaking to the level or max level for ramp up. It seems to me if implemented it would be just another safeguard to prevent power overshoot. I see it as additive but not circumventing IDCC's power ramp up patents.

Thanks!eom

NukeJohn, This question may have already been asked but could you explain the process of what happens after a case is remanded back to the ITC.

NJ, I think you may be getting a call soon from so big profile firms asking for your services to assess them during their mock trial runs and provide input on courtroom effectiveness.

Just speaking from my observation their are unwritten rules and decorum expected of attorney's and officers of the court.

I think IDCC was able to accomplish that feat with Samsung. Additionally I agree as loophole said the past strategy of focusing on past money due hindered the outlook of IDCC as the past due infringement funds did not support the longterm viability of IDCC. Wallstreet is only concern about present and future fundamentals, with the emphasis being future. I dare to say this is the last hurdle for IDCC but if they establish a contract going forward w/Nok the model will be laid and set to moveout on the final infringers. When it comes time to reset IDCC will have built a moat around their patents similar to QCOM. Even Qcom has to battle with the big beast every so often to get paid. The only difference between Qcom and IDCC is Nok knows their limit with QCOM is right before the court steps. If Nok finally settles up with IDCC I feel Nok's MO will be similar for future negotiations with IDCC if not a tadbit easier. Our little IDCC has transformed from a so call patent troll to an established innovator in the world of wireless.

Good point my3sons. All the evidence seems to be pointed towards the Judges are ready to publish decision in the near future. I assumed with the long delay and the reporting by NJ that the judges already new the case upside, downside, forward, and backwards. IMHO if it goes to the decision it will posted NLT the end of January.

That's it I figured it out. You are married to JP and BM is Brother!lol

I look at it this way it is even hard for an attorney to make you believe 2+2= 5

I would and I would follow his lead as he dissects the rest of the table.

Good deal. I cut my teeth on the initial ITC case. The day before I talked with my wife about taking off early and now wished I did. It would have been a joy to meet you and the rest of the guys, however I couldn't have provided a sliver of information compared to what has already been posted.

Great report. I like your detail. You definitely have knowledge of the courts, processes, and the technology. Sincere gratitude because the depth and breadth of information you provided to the board there are corporations and wealthy people that pay a lot of money for that info and you have provided to the board out of the kindness of your heart.

My thanks to all that attended Nuke, infinite, mMonterey, and anybody I missed. I work not to for from the court. WIshed that I could have been there.

Good to hear from you.eom

Bloomberg: InterDigital Surges, Nokia Case Argued in Court Today

By Joshua Fineman and Susan Decker

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- InterDigital climbs as much as 7%.

on 264% of 3-mo avg. volume.

* IDCC patent suit with Nokia argued in court earlier today

(U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit in Washington)

* NOTE: IDCC failed in Oct. 2009 to persuade U.S

Internatioanal Trade Commission to consider whether NOK

violated patents for mobile phones

* Case is In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and components thereof, 337-613, U.S. ITC

Thanks for encouragement. I too believe it will be water under the bridge.

Let me be the first to say New 52 week high!eom

I think time has arrived and I made a bad move, but my saving grave is I backed the move up with some calls that I think will be fruitful. Additionally I will be buying back in at higher prices. I have already started in AH. I will buy some more tomorrow.

Me too but I am hoping to make it back up with my June calls.eom

ALright Mangum P.I.eom

It's B to try to sweeten up sh and make it smell like roses.IMHO

Trying to catch up with all the post. Pissed sold my stock yesterday and bought options. My3sons are you still on the beach. Throw a life preserver and pull me a shore these options don't float near as well as the IDCC stock.

Someone again purchase a big block of DITM calls today?

The original inquiry was if Nok took a position in IDCC. I was just stating that IDCC would have to make a transaction with treasury shares.

IMHO IDCC would have to make any such transaction with treasury shares.