Sonic22
Please no one invest on my post on this board, as they are entirely my own personal opinon, and may not be factual.
Just why should IDCC back down, they still have Nokia losing in the U.K. they still have Nokia withdrawing and settling on another patent in the U.K. IDCC has tons of other patents that I have to believe Nokia is infringing on. IDCC still has every right to prove that the 4 valid patents in this litigation is infringed and a judge made a mistake, similiar to what the 2 other judges did. You want to give up to easy, yet you don't want IDCC to settle for pennies. IDCC doesn't give a crap about you or me, or if the stock goes up or down, their main concern is the longivity of the company, and that says stay after Nokia like a pit bull. Nokia is the one with the problem not IDCC, as Nokia still is at risk of ban, not IDCC. Nokia is still subject to a court awarded rate on the patents awarded in the U.K. and agreed upon in the U.K. I would suspect and how can you argue you don't owe when you already agreed you use the technology? How can you say that out of the 3,000 domestic patents you don't violate any of them. How can you say you circumvent ESSENTIAL, and how can you communicate with a standards declared patent and all others are using it, and you are circumventing it, when it is the only way of communicating using the standards approved technology.
Let me add that only one person can lose at the commission in my opinion and thats Nokia since they won the infringement already. Nokia can never get away from what they agreed to in the U.K. and I am sure IDCC has enough other patents Nokia infringes to shove it to Nokia, so Nokia maybe acting arrogant but trust me they are scared to death.
How many of you if you was unlicensed with IDCC would think that the ITC decision made you absolved from paying IDCC. Do you think it will be easier to go to court and fight declared valid patents and enforceable, or against patents that have not been ruled valid and enforceable? IDCC just strengthened their ability to negotiate with others, and as I stated I think IDCC will or should have learned don't go to court with out your engineers, or other expert engineers having not reversed engineered the phones of the other party, and being able to lay it on the table of how and why the other party is using the technology. The judge may not understand it nor the jury but the facts are you have the phones and your experts laying it on the table, and explaining it, and you had the confidence to bring it to court and lay it out for all to hear and see. I maintain that would be hard to overcome for the opposition. Especially if IDCC had another phone from the oppositioion absent the IDCC technology and said lets try using this phone and see if it performs absent our technology. I would suspect the otherside would be objecting like hell, as no judge would really understand what was going on nor a jury, but I bet it would be impressive.
JMO
Mickey
