Ron, Re: Lucent
I expect that, in the conference call, they will have no problem reiterating their claim that we have essential IPR in CDMA2000. However, I doubt they will discuss the underlying strategy behind the who, when and why of suing infringers.
My guess is that the Lucent suit is a surgical strike intended enjoin Lucent from using Tantivy's IPR. Someone posted that an injunction might cause 50,000 base stations to go dark. I am not sure if the Tantivy IPR is for base stations or handsets, but the thought of that possibility is very significant.
If Tantivy has essential IPR that can cripple Lucent, then Lucent may decide to settle and enter into a combined royalty bearing license agreement with Tantivy for its CDMA2000 patents, and with ITC for its 3G IPR, including CDMA2000 and WCDMA.
If we can show the marketplace that a major manufacturer like Lucent is paying us for our 3G, it will likely be easier to negotiate with (or sue) other manufactures who are infringing on our IPR.
I believe that this is the main strategy, and that drawing out the idemnifier, and/or setting a benchmark for our most favored nation deal with Nokia will be icing on the cake.
In the wireless communication market, the law of the jungle rules. This has been proven in the past with our dealings with MOT and Nokia, etc. It's survival of the fittest.
Lucent is like a wounded water buffalo lagging behind the rest of the herd. InterDigital is like a cheetah going in for the kill.
IMHO, our strategy is to capitalize on our strengths and to attack where others are weak. Just like in the jungle.
It's nice to be the predator for a change.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
