Think you may be overlooking some interesting considerations regarding the Tantivy situation before InterDigital acquired them, and also regarding the recent litigation IDCC initiated with Lucent on some of the Tantivy patents they now own.
Who was in a position to gain anything from buying the rights to Tantivy's patents? The wireless manufacturers have all negotiated cross-license deals with each other, and were not going to improve their revenues by adding a few more patents. QCOM has pretty much everybody already signed up under a "one price gets you all" license, and was probably not going to go through renegotiation of all those deals just to add in an extra charge for a few more Tantivy patents.
See what I'm saying? When the big boys decide to trample a small budget patent owner by not paying for infringement things get mighty lonesome and bleak. Tantivy was at the point of laying off employees because they could not meet their payroll. How were they going to fund an extended legal battle vs one of the big boys to enforce their patent rights?
(Sound of hoofbeats and a bugle blowing "Charge!") Here comes Rin Tin Tin leading Howard Goldberg the IDCC cavalry to the rescue. LOL! The wireless industry is well aware that Howard Goldberg is someone to take seriously in a legal battle, that he has an army of F & J patent litigation experts, and that he has the funds available to keep them fighting for as long as they need to. He does not do cross-licenses, and he does not do "one price gets you all" license deals.
Now,... take ANOTHER look at the Tantivy acquisition and the Lucent litigation. I see good solid patents being blatantly infringed while the little company that created them is being starved out of business. InterDigital comes to their rescue and serves notice to the bad boys that a new sheriff is in town.
Tic toc. A few months pass and some folks apparently are not taking him seriously, so Howard carefully picks a target and fires his first shot. "Lucent, step up to the bar in the East Texas shooting gallery. You are charged with infringement of seven patents. You know, the ones Tantivy developed and you refused to license from them." (Yowser! Gotta love it IMO.)
I think that is pretty close to what is going on, and I think it is very smart. Enforce the patent rights acquired from Tantivy while keeping all of IDCC's other IPR out of any legal proceeding and the potential for additional delays that might cause. IMO that is some mighty good shooting even if that is all there is to it. Could be even better if it is also intended to call the "indemnification" issue out in the open. Gonna be fun to watch what happens either way.
AI
