InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[frobinso]

In this post you have the curiosity that a wolf in sheeps clothing would posess (Not an accusation). All the lawyers and historians on this site are the greatest thing, and in some scenarios they could be also be less than helpful to their own investment by sleuthing for knowledge that is contrary to the interests of their own investment.

Not that I think IDCC is hiding anything, and I haven't a clue about anything this far back in the common heritage of IDCC and QCOM, but I hate to see the boards braintrust freely doing work for Samsung or Nokia's lawyers on the Interdigital board. It's already known they monitor it, and even have used postings from this board in legal filings.

I do not mean to imply there is any ill intent in your questioning, ERIC, but it seems like a line of questioning or research that would be asked or performed by one of Samsung's or Nokia's lawyers, and I notice NOKIA as one of your favorite investments.

You are obviously very knowledgable, and a skilled sleuth like Oldog - as well as a long-time poster on this board, so I do not mean this as an insult or accusation - those are great questions - I just hate to see research that might only benefit Samsung or Nokia performed freely by those who who are long on IDCC.

Why dig so hard for avenues, or new avenues of support for Samsung's hopefully baseless assertions in concluding a QCOM license is sufficient for their products, or that Interdigital, is bound now through an earlier ETSI membership to not be paid justly for the patents they own?