InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[ricky]

Learning2vest,

"Nokia's 2G rate with InterDigital stopped being about patent validity and infringement the moment SONY/Ericsson settled and agreed to 2G rates. When that happened Nokia's contract provisions allowing them to have their 2G rates based on anything other than the rates agreed by one of the "named manufacturers" in that 1999 license agreement were null and void, gone, kaput.

Nokia bet that Ericsson would prevail in their litigation vs InterDigital, and Nokia lost that bet. "

"When that happened Nokia's contract provisions allowing them to have their 2G rates based on anything other than the rates agreed by one of the "named manufacturers" in that 1999 license agreement were null and void, gone, kaput."

Why do you think the above statement is true?

I see no reason why Nokia is bound by an agreement made by IDCC and SONY/Ericsson.

The Sony Ericsson rate may be used as an example in a court judgement of what similiar customers are paying in making a decision as to how much Nokia owes IDCC but many other factors will need to be considered (e.g. volume of product sold, importance of IDCC IP when used on a Sony Ericsson product versus a Nokia product).

I think Nokia should be paying IDCC a fair price for use of their IP (plus interest and other considerations for going to court) but I'm not convinced a court decision will be directly linked to the IDCC and Sony Ericsson agreement.