Can someone clarify this sentence
"Nokia is seeking a determination that it has no royalty obligations to InterDigital based on its licensing agreement with Ericsson, InterDigital said."
Is it saying that the ERICY settlement does not trigger a royalty rate, and therefore royalty obligation, for Nokia.
or
Based on the ERICY settlement, Nokia owes nothing for Phase II.
The second one seems ludicrous, but I'd like IDCC to clarify it.
I can't believe Nokia would be contending the ERICY settlement was not arms length. IF the settlement had contained other matters (like a partnership deal), then Nokia could say the parties agreed to bump up the 2G rate and adjust the $'s in the other agreement so that ERICY ends up paying the same amount but forces NOK to pay more. However, since IDCC got NOTHING from ERICY other than the 2G and 2.5G royalties and a promise to be our friend, it just does not make sense.
My gut told me this would go to arbitration because that's how things work in the wonderful world of IDCC. My head said no, not this time. Management stated and reiterated actual figures. They must be sure. (I still think they were.) Should of listened to my gut - it is far bigger than my brain.
If IDCC cannot get agreement that will generate $'s in the range stated, I hope they go all the way this time. No win/win compromise. Until IDCC goes all the way and wins and the other guy LOSES, they will face these tactics. Until other businesses perceive a downside to f'ing with IDCC, this will be our fate. Forget trying to be everyone's friend. Be their damn tax collector. If they don't like it, tough $hit. Play hardball and don't be afraid to knock down a few guys to make the point. I don't care if we are popular, I do care if we get paid.
