Loop--One has to ask whether Nokia is engaged in a game of chicken. Nokia is looking for a court declaration that would be effective in 2006, after the 3G license expires. Unless the 3g suit is in a district court with a rocket docket, it is unlikely a decision will be rendered by the effective date of contract termination. In that case, will Nokia refrain from selling 3G products in the U.S. until the case is resolved? At the conclusion of the 3G license in 2006, IDCC would be free to seek an injunction against Nokia sales in the U.S. of any 3G covered product. Although some posters state that an injunction will not issue since IDCC will not suffer irreparable harm because it could receive money damages, there are federal circuit court cases that state monetary damages are not sufficient and that an injunction can issue against patent infringers. Also, at that time, Nokia would risk triple damages for patent violations. Given IDCC's strength in 3G standards, a strong case for an injunction or triple damages would seem to viable. Plus, what about the 3G patents that are not in issue in the case, would Nokia be infringing on some of those? And, what if Nokia does not renew for 2G after 2006. Do IDCC patents continue beyond that year and would Nokia risk a 2G lawsuit as well.
I do agree with your view that IDCC needs a 3G license from a major player, and, if it receives one, Nokia then would have to make a decision. Would NOkia be willing to forego U.S. sales of 3G products pending resolution of the 3G lawsuit and risk a loss of market share to a 3G competitor who would be in a position to sell into the U.S. market? Someone like Ericy might be willing to enter into a license with IDCC upon an assurance that IDCC would wage war against Nokia until Nokia licensed with IDCC. This could give Ericy-Sony a major foothold in the U.S. pending the resolution of the 3G case. And what about Europe? Would Nokia risk a round of litigation there and an impact on its 3G sales?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
