InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[The Count]

Lawyers please help me understand

I know from working with tax law that the law and common sense are often very different, so please respond to these two questions for me.

1. Hasn't IDCC been asserting their patents must be licensed and negotiating with Sammy and others for years. Isn't that IDCC's business model, getting paid for their IP? How could anyone ever say that Samsung did not expect IDCC to assert their patents?

2. Why not unilaterally set a rate for each declared patent. There is a range of reasonable prices. IDCC can use the criteria that support a higher rate. SAM would have to prove that the rate was unreasonable - so even if they could show a lower rate was more reasonable it would not matter as long as IDCCs rate was reasonable. I know there was a comment earlier that IDCC's case at the ITC asserts that there is no implied license so they don't want to take any action inconsistent with that position. However also mentioned was the S on the wall theory, where SAM is asserting defenses that contradict each other. IDCC can say we don't think the implied license is applicable, but if it is, then we are setting these rates for each of our ETSI declared patents respectively. At the very least, if the ITC buys off on the implied license defense, then the next day IDCC should set the rates unilaterally.

I appreciate any help with these simple minded questions as I am again baffled by convoluted process and tangental crap that gets debated when the issue seems so simple. Does IDCC have a license? No. Is any valid IDCC patent being infringed upon by Samsung? Yes. Therefore there is a violation and there should be an injunction. Yes, I know it is too simple and we have to spend years while lawyers get millions of dollars debating what "is" is.