Nicmar, I don't accept the premise that Nokia pays Qualcomm only $4/phone, as the 15 year 2G/3G/4G license they signed was complex, and included the payment of $2.5 bil cash, the transfer of substantial 2G/2.5G/3G/4G patents from Nokia, an agreement not to assert any Nokia patents against Qualcomm, and payment of ongoing royalties at approximately 2% of the wholesale value of each device sold, plus infrastructure royalties from NSN.(I believe the deal to be significantly greater than $4/device.)The flip answer to your question is that Nokia agreed to pay Qualcomm far more than they'll end up paying InterDigital, because their portfolio is more important, and more extensive.One need only look at the licenses both companies have signed, to reasonably infer that conclusion.Sophisticated corporations, relying upon the best engineering and legal advice they can buy, decide the terms of the licenses they are willing to accept.That's how the fair market value of one's portfolios is determined. Unfortunately for those who believe what they want to be true, rather than what has been circumstantially proven to be true, no one on this or any message board is competent to express an independent expert opinion on the commercial value of one or more patents.And when wild eyed assertions are made by laymen, as to such esoteric and expert matters, disappointment in the agreements actually signed is likely to result.You can be certain that IDCC cuts the best deals it can, with the portfolio it has to license.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
