Why hasn't there been a settlement by now?
I've been pondering that question for a while, trying to keep the thought process free of influence of perpetual optimism this board creates, and have formulated the theory that Samsung thinks the pressure to compromise to reach a settlement is all on IDCC.
So...what underpins that theory? Just this. The downside for Sammy is limited. Some folks here will dispute that, claiming that an injunction is a big, BIG hammer. However, we've already offered Sammy a license and, if the ALJ rules in our favor, all Sammy has to do is accept our offer. That's THEIR worst case. Game over.
Sammy probably sees that our downside is NOT limited. If we don't get the injunction, we are looking at YEARS of litigation during which time getting any other top tier licensee will be an uphill battle. For those of us invested in this stock, that would be a killer. We'd languish in the teens until we finally got paid, and we'd probably have to resort to the courts to pursue the other manufacturers, too.
Before anybody jumps up to remind me that Merritt is 'confident' in our ITC case, just remember the number of times that obviously bad decisions have been rendered. Think Batts, Motorola, OJ, and Levi. Besides, this post is simply a theory about the way Samsung may be assessing the risks and rewards, not a commentary on the quality of our case at the ITC.
Finally, even if Sammy shares Merritt's view of our ITC case, under this theory it's easy to see why they haven't settled - why shouldn't they just let this play out until we cave in or they lose the case and have to accept our offer.
I've been advocating that we use some of the 2G money sweeten the pot for Sammy. Maybe, just maybe, even that wouldn't get them to sign. JMHO.
