InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Learning2vest]

Loop, here is a more agreeable thought re Sammy 3: "Maybe they are doing some work we WANT them to do!"

Could just be my rose tinted peddler shades, but check out what IDCC's counsel "Mr Flanagan" had to say in the bolded portion of the transcript copied below.

It's from spencer's post 207544, and it has me believing/hoping that the ICC's Arb 3 is all about cooking Samsung's 2006 goose for us. He is referring to some number crunching work that we need to get done, so "tic, toc" IMO.

........................................................


21 THE COURT: I want to hear if he's as optimistic as
22 you as to whether May is when there could be a resolution with
23 the third arbitration.
24 MR. FLANAGAN: I'll address that first.
25 Just to clarify, the hearing in Samsung II was in
1 January 2006. The decision was issued at the end of August
2 2006. Also, just by way of clarification, perhaps, in Samsung
3 III, the schedule is such is that February there is a hearing
4 date on a threshold issue about whether Samsung is even
5 entitled to elect the Nokia settlement. If and only if they
6 win on that issue we'll go to a third stage, which dates have
7 not yet been set.
8 The other comment I'd make about timing is that
9 Mr. Healey cites the ICC rule that you're supposed to get a
10 decision within six months of the terms of reference, but we
11 have already seen extensions to the schedule. We have seen
12 extensions in all of the Samsung arbitrations. Maybe not
13 Samsung I, but Samsung II there were certainly extensions. As
14 time requires, the ICC simply extends it. So it's quite right
15 that the six months is not a hard cap. We don't even know
16 where the time will run from, when the matter is submitted.
17 Certainly, if we win on this next stage 2 in February,
18 that will be the end of it, but short -- once we get a
19 decision. Short of that, what Mr. Healey is hoping for, there
20 will definitely have to be proceedings later on. In fact -- I
21 take it back. If we prevail in part 2, there will still be a
22 part 3 to determine exactly how much Samsung owes us for 2006.
23 Because as the Court may recall in Samsung II, the panel
24 ordered a rate table for 2006 but didn't have their actual
25 sales data for 2006. So that's a matter that still needs to be determined because they obviously haven't paid us.

2 THE COURT: That's an issue before the Samsung III
3 panel?

4 MR. FLANAGAN: We have brought that in as being for
5 phase 3 of the proceedings.