InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[loophole73]

Ranger

I do not care about camps or if people want to disagree with me. I have consulted with licensed arbitrators who do not own a single share of stock in IDCC and do not know the parties or arbitrators involved in the arbitration proceedings. I give them the same hypo ie
ICC, contract interpretation, no science involved, evidentiary hearing concluded Jan 2005, the language of the 8k and the final date 5/31/2005 set by the ICC rather than the Tribunal.

Each one stated that in their opinion the action of the ICC was stimulated by a request from the tribunal to divert from a previous scheduled matter or a request by the parties to the tribunal to proceed to a draft order and table to allow settlement finalization prior to issuance of a "final binding award". They all stated that the evidence portion must be closed for the ICC to be issuing final award dates back to the Tribunal.

These are tea leave reading exercises and WAG's at best. It is safer to believe that nothing happened except the ICC disagreed with the date the Tribunal set for themselves to produce the draft award to the ICC and the ICC expanded the time on their own. However, I do not believe that it is too time consuming to make a decision regarding the trigger, review the royalty liability obligation models of both parties, make a determination regarding the discount and credit claims of Nok and render a decision with respect to past and future royalty for the sale of products containing the technology identified in the 8k.

This is my final post on the subject and what will be, will be. I just hope we are all happy shortly. I have waited far too long on this one to be unbiased.

MO
loop