Loop- Sam and IDCC are both talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Sam claims to have won a novation, so their original license is out the window, and they now have the entire Nok license, including all the T&Cs therein, 3G coverage, and further MFL rights, just like Nok. Then, out of the other side of Sam's mouth, they say they don't have to follow all the Nok T&Cs, triggers, and rate calculations. Rather, they just want the bottom line same exact highest volume royalty rate as Nok i.e. not to follow the Nok T&Cs.
For its part, IDCC seems to claim Sam did not win a novation, so they are still stuck with their original T&Cs, and no 3G coverage. Then, out of the other side of IDCC's mouth, they assert that the Nok T&Cs, i.e. triggers and other factors, should be used to determine the Sam royalty rate.
Regarding "stay out of the frey", for years we have been trying to form our own opinions on the litigation, and rightfully so, since as investors we need to do that, however deep we individually may or may not look. And, we have been sharing info and interpretations here for years, to all our great benefit.
In your reading of the Sam arbitration, it seems you are only recognizing one of the arguments proffered by each side without recognizing the internal contradiction by the dual positions from both sides.
FWIW, here is how I see the Sam matter:
1- Sam previously won a novation and therefore gets the entire Nok license, T&Cs, and 3G coverage.
2- Logically, therefore, Sam should enjoy, or suffer, the rate calculations in the Nok license i.e. triggers, "other considerations", and rate SCHEDULE invented by the Nok arbitration panel. Sam should not logically bypass the Nok T&Cs and jump straight to the same exact rate as Nok got from their calculations dictated by the T&Cs.
3- Sam also therefore would seem to have the new right under their Nok license to choose another MFL, which in turn might be the LG deal, the recent Nok settlement, or some other deal.
4- It seems Sam will have 30 days from the ICC ruling to make another MFL choice.
5- Does it follow then if Sam elects to keep its Nok license, in its entirety, and IDCC does not close a proper 3G trigger deal by year end, that Sam may evade any 3G obligation?
6- On the other hand, if Sam elects to follow Nok into the recent settlement, which we just learned may involve a long term agreement by IDCC not to sue for infringement, then does it follow that Sam could terminate its (Nok) 3G license and like Nok, enjoy a (perhaps long) period of insulation from 3G infringement suit? If this is the case, then, investors just learned something management may have known i.e. that 2 of the top 6 OEMs cannot be 3G revenue producers for the term of that 3G non-suit agreement.
The above reflects my logic applied to the very tangled Sam/Nok/IDCC web. In short, I tend to see the Novation and 3G issues favoring Sam, and the rate setting mechanism more in favor of IDCC. Of course, what really matters is how the ICC rules on these issues.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
AI
