InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[j70k]

Mickey- Since you believe that the substantial progress statement made in the 8k reflects that a contingency agreement was reached that tied Nok's rates to Sam's less a discount, what would have happened come Nov 25th and Sam decided to let it ride? Remember, at the time of the 8k, the cases were still linked, and there is no possible way that Nok would allow its' destiny to be dictated by Sam. In my opinion, had the comment by Shay not been made and/or circulated on message boards, thus becoming a non-intended disclosure, line 1 of the Nokia update 8k would not have been included. If you put into context his remark, it would be very reasonable to assume that something would make April 11th a moot point in his opinion. Prior to Batts' decision, I believe that Nok was very seriously considering the strategy of settling with IDCC prior to its' showdown with Qcom, and that Shay's comment reflected his knowledge of how far they had progressed. This would have to be an unbelievable coincidence if the substantial progress statement and the unintended disclosure by an IDCC officer were not linked. I think that this is a far more probable explaination of why line 1 of the update was included, particularly in regards to timing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't think logic supports tying a statement of substantial progress to a contingent agreement. Mickey, I hope that you are correct, and that there is an agreement in place, that will be announced after Sam has announced its' payment option, but it is very difficult to understand how and why this agreement would have been made back in March. JMO