InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[ziploc_1]

Differing perspectives in Idcc Samsung dispute

In a bizarre twist, Idcc seems to be saying to Samsung that since Nok has not agreed to a rate after 1/1/02 while the matter is being arbitrated, no licence with them for that period (after 1/1/02) exists. Therefore, although the MFL clause in the Samsung agreement allowed them to pay no more than the NOK rate prior to 1/1/02 it does not excuse them from paying at least what the Ericy rate is in the period after 1/1/02.
Samsung is saying that the Nok rate (to be determined by arbitration) is in fact a rate and they should pay no more than Nok's rate and NOT UNTIL until that rate is determined.
What it boils down to is the question,"Is a licence without an established rate really a licence at all or does it become a licence only when a rate is set?" In this case, Idcc seems to be saying there is no licence between Idcc and Nok until the rate has been established and therefore Samsung's MFL protection can not kick in until that happens. Samsung is saying there is indeed an Idcc-Nok licence even without an established rate.
Looking at it that way, I might just lean towards Idcc's argument. The only problem is that the Idcc Nok rate will have probably been set before the Samsung arbitration has been concluded. At time the whole question becomes moot. With that in mind, I still don't understand why Idcc is pressing the issue at this time.