InterDigital Inc (IDCC): Exactly, to repeat my post of yesterday:...

Reply Private New

Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

Send PM Follow Ignore

Followers	27
Posts	2005
Boards Moderated	0
Alias Born	01/02/2003

sjratty

Re: Dishfan post# 44709

Friday, 09/26/2003 4:27:05 PM

Friday, September 26, 2003 4:27:05 PM

Exactly, to repeat my post of yesterday:

According to press releases: "Samsung's royalty obligations for sales of 2G and 2.5G TDMA wireless communications products commencing January 1, 2002 will be defined by the relevant licensing terms between ITC and certain other leading manufacturers of wireless telecommunications equipment, none of which are yet licensed by ITC."

Thus, IDCC informed Samsung (as it did Nokia) that the ERICY agreement is one with a "leading manufacturer of wireless telecommunications equiptment" and it must pay. Samsung said no (and like Nokia) initiated the dispute resolution process.

NOTE: Samsung was tied to Nokia because they both were waiting on another leading manufacturer signing on. That is, if Nokia signed on, it counted as "the other" manufacturer for Samsung. Since Nokia did not sign on, IDCC used ERICY as "the other" manufacturer and Samsung disputes that.