Appealing to the commision: If I were the attorney for Idcc I would select one patent and make it exceedingly clear, in a simplified manner that a layman could understand, why this patent was infringed by Nok. I would enlist at least a half a dozen experts in the field to fully investigate the patent and the equipment that is infringing on it and rest my case on their testimony

Dndood: On Friday morning, as it became evident the dispute would go to a decision, some people, who were risk averse, sold, causing the price to drop about a point. When it hit 30, a stop loss sale was generated and a large holder sold 145 thousand shares in about a minute . This panicked some others into selling and the price dropped to the low 28's. Seeing this, I was tempted to add to my holdings but fortunately did not since I already had more than enough.

Although I believe that we should appeal this decision to the full commision and beyond if necessary, I do not think we should put all our eggs in one basket. We should consider going after MOT or ERIC as we pursue this case to its conclusion. We badly need a win and we ought to be able to get one as we pursue this. We have cash on hand now and IMO this is the best way to use it.

Please don't blame management. Perhaps they could have chosen a better day for a picnic but other than that they did their best and are probably just as shocked and bewildered at the result as we are. We've lost a huge battle but the war isn't over yet and there will be more battles ahead,hopefully with a better outcome.

Could the no infringement decision be explained by a previously unknown or not well understood agreement between Idcc and Nok that seemed to give Nok the right to use these patents with no payments?

It makes sense that the decision will be made today and announced before the market opens on monday. This would avoid a halt in trading by Idcc and/or Nok although I doubt the decision would much affect the NOK price one way or the other. MO

I think you are referring to stop limit instead of stop loss. In the latter, when it hits your sell point, it becomes a market order.

Loop: a settlement in the mode of QCOM will do nothing to alter NOK's business model. A settlement in the mode of AAPL or SAM at this time when Idcc's case is as strong as its ever been would seal IDCC's fate as a bit player in wireless communications. Who do you think is more likely to compromise here? If you were the judge, whom would you be more frustrated with?

The answer to TC given by BM is about as good an example of double talk as I've seen. Who knows what he means. Personally, I hope Apple is the source of the 77 million because if it is then I'm happily wrong about management making one of the dumbest deals of our times.

It was nice experiencing a positive analysis on cnbc and the consequent rise in the stock price but keep in mind that many here know as much or more about IDCC and its prospects than the analyst. What really matters is the price after the ALJ decision on Friday(which may not be released immediately)What is important now in the midst of this premature celebration is for us and management to keep our cool and not give in to a mediocre settlement prior to the ALJ decision. Lets hope that the decision is positive and then we can all really celebrate.

NOK will use every strategy in their scorched earth attempt to thwart IDCC. I'm sure it has occurred to them that something might happen to the judge to incapacitate him before he issues his opinion. Then they could delay another year or two until a new judge takes over. With this in mind, they would prefer to delay a settlement until the last possible second.

The NOK vs. IDCC fight is more like a war rather than a series of negotiations. We, the shareholders, are the privates in this war and management are the generals. We are on the front lines with our fortunes and may very well suffer serious losses. The generals operate behind the lines and, although they celebrate aong with us in our victories and commiserate in our defeats, they are more proteced from serious injuries in the latter. Like all soldiers in a nasty and dangerous war, we have to have courage and conviction that we are in the right. We understand that should we lose, we will be badly hurt but we have to be optimistic that we will prevail and survive unbroken and stronger.

Revlis: NOK has been trounced by APPL in the smartphone arena. This is mainly a software problem and now that NOK realizes its shortcomings, it will use its considerable muscle to fix the problem and become more competitive in this area. This situation should NOT deter IDCC from insisting on a per unit royalty rate.

ShallowMind: What we ultimately want is for the court to issue an injunction. Royalty rates will not be decided by this court. I have no doubt that if there is a decision which is adverse to the interests of NOK, they will argue that the decision was not really adverse. We do not need further litigation about the judges decision. We simply need an injunction to induce them to make a reasonable settlement. I would not muddy the waters with any complicated agreement such as high low or most favored licensee. You can depend on NOK to use this type of agreement to delay and litigate further.

Revlis, thank you for pointing that out. I hope NOK has an excellent fourth quarter so they'll have plenty of cash to pay IDCC.

NOK, under its present management, likes to throw the dice from time to time. NOK figures if it loses at at the ITC, it can settle for little more than what IDCC is asking for at this time. There is risk here for both parties. NOK is figuring that its huge size will scare IDCC into a mediocre settlement as it has in the past. It is to be expected that if the ALJ decision is positive for IDCC, NOK will reimburse IDCC well for the risk it has been forced to take.

Brilliant summary:"Interdigital Communications Corporation (IDCC) has long been the Rodney Dangerfield of the wireless Telecom sector, as it just “can’t get no respect,” from either Wall Street or many of the big wireless players. However, that may finally change later this summer as the world’s leader in cell phone sales, Nokia, could decide to come to terms with IDCC"<b/>

This explains why Idcc can't accept a mediocre settlement with NOK as it has in the past

When Nok bot Navteq for 8 billion dollars, they definitely overpaid. Apparentlty they were determined not to do that again with Nortel. This is good for Idcc since Nok has some extra cash to pay Idcc for past infringement while signing a per unit license for ongoing use of Idcc patents.

I assume that one of the issues being negotiated is whether a deal will be for a per unit royalty or a fixed rate. With NOK presently in the dumpster and with their prospects looking bleak, I believe this is the time for IDCC to go for a per unit royalty. NOK should be more willing to go along with that than they were previously. It may involve a degree of risk for IDCC but we have taken lots of risks and this one seems worth taking.

my3s: I agree. There is so much negativity and panic about NOK out there that the last thing NOK needs now is an injunction on some of their products being sold in the U.S. From a PR point of view, this could set them back years. Time for them to change their customary recipe of delay, litigation, and more delay.

Jeff: You said:"Nokia would have to accept any terms and rates demanded by IDCC".I disagree. If Idcc became unreasonable in their demands, NOK would appeal on the basis of frand to the highest forum. No! I think a deal similiar to the one QCOM got would do just fine, thank you.

Nic: Having followed NOK for a decade and seeing how they do business, I expect them to settle but only AFTER an adverse decision at the ITC and then the true negotiating will start. Right now they are just demanding another capitulation by IDCC. When they think they have or even MAY have the upper hand, they will never budge an inch. If they can manufacture some idea to continue litigation or delay, they will do it.

Eric:With all these assets NOK seems to have going for it, perhaps you can comment on the reason why Appl seems to be eating their lunch in the increasingingly important smartphone segment.

SONIC: I agree except that I would rather see a per unit rate. NOK may have leveled off and dipped in sales but I would be willing to gamble on their future growth. We've taken plenty of risks up to this point. I feel that a per unit deal is an acceptable risk.

Count: I basically agree with you but I believe that Nok would appeal the ITC decision to the presidential administration prior to a ban taking effect This appeal would be on the basis of frand and I am afraid it might find some support. I hope I am mistaken in this and I would appreciate a legal eagle disabusing me of this line of thinking

Quartz:NS is in the process of buying nortel LTE and CDMA ip for $650 millon. Is this a frand price? Absolutely not. It is a price predicated on the power of NS and the bankruptcy of nortel. It is undeniable that the SAM rate came at a time when IDCC was more in need of cash and recognition for its ip than it is now. Nok, for years, has had this strategy in dealing with IDCC of using litigation and delay to push them into bankruptcy or to the verge of bankruptcy. Fortunately NOK failed, partly because of deals like the SAM deal, which although not really fair, did have the effect of shoring up IDCC's position. It was NOK's plan to deal with IDCC in th same way NS is dealing with nortel. Well they're not able to and a truly frand deal would be much closer to the one NOK recently signed with QCOM than to the IDCC SAM deal.

" If IDCC demanded anything more from Nokia than what they got from Samsung, Nokia would be right back in court claiming that the demand was not FRAND"

Jeffrey: Your post outlines why NOK and Idcc are far apart in their negotiations. Nok would like to characterize the Iddc-Appl and the Idcc-Sam deals as frand and Idcc would like the Nok-Qcom deal to be an example of frand. I'm afraid that it will take a decision by the ALJ before this dispute can be ironed out.

jai: Nokia apparently agreed to a royalty rate of something north of 1.5% per unit plus handing over some rights to their IP to Qcom. This would be a great settlement for idcc and I'm convinced idcc would take it in a minute, even without the IP But, at least until now, Nokia has never treated idcc with that kind of largesse. I'm not sure why, but they seem to have had it in for idcc for years.

Clarke: This is the last one of your taunting rants that I'll respond to but I do rememeber losing money after buying in the aftermath of the mediocre Ericy license agreement.

Past history has shown that even a mediocre settlement pushes Idcc stock price up about 10 or 15%. Then the traders sell and take their profits and the shorters come in. This takes away the premium and may even push the price down below the pre settlement price. Insiders may join in this selling too. For us longs the only realistic hope for a significant and sustained rise in price is a positive court decision. Nok has been the bully on the block in their dealings with Idcc and it is doubtful that they would come up with an acceptable settlement in the absence of a court decision.

Jai: You're right. Nok has thrown down the gauntlet on this validity issue and Idcc doesn't have much choice but to fight.

MY3: Don't underestimate Nok potential. They presently have a 35 to 40 % market share in global handsets and seem serious, for the first time in a while, about going after the American market.

My3: I suspect that I have a stake in the success of IDCC in this Nok confrontation that is larger than 90% of the contributors to this board and like you I am scared of a defeat. Nevertheless, I feel that at some point we have to "suck it in" and "bite the bullet" (to coin a phrase or two) and it appears to me that this is as propitious a time as any.

"Zip, would a "no fee" license suit you better than a fixed fee."<b/>

The fixed fee APPL license for 7 years is an example of why fixed fees are not a good thing. Fixed fees of several hundred million dollars make shareholders feel good for a while and justify large bonuses for management but they tend to seriously under value the patents. The economy will recover and especially communications technology will grow but the fixed fee and its legacy will remain. imo

I agree with you REVLIS,DATA and MICKEY. IDCC was financially weak and felt forced to give away the farm. This mindset explains some of the recent deals with APPL and SAM. The situation has changed. We should not now feel the same need to give away the farm with NOK.

Nok is the leader in handsets. The other OEM's sense that this is not just a licensing dispute but an effort to break Idcc. They are waiting around to see how successful Nok will be. They are waiting to take their clue from the results of this confrontation to guide them in how they should deal with Idcc. imo

It will take a potent positive resolution of the Nok matter before any of these will sign.imo

Warbil: I believe that NOK abandoned the frand defense in order to concentrate on the validity defense. This is an issue IDCC can't compromise on for obvious reasons. It now looks as though this latest tactic of NOK points towards a court decision. Nok figures that if they lose, they can then invoke the frand defense in their appeal.


"I hope you are right. Might it be the terms for forgiveness of past infringements and the length of the contract?"<b/>

Jeffrey...I agree. I hope this will be made clear in the settlement.

Silverfox... We should let management know that if we hold Nokia's feet to the fire this time and if it does not work out, we will not second guess them.

"Zip...Sounds great & I am sure you will get "hurahs" from the board for your post but in effect the post is meaningless Exactly what kind of support do you propose we provide management <b/>