"leaves one last choice - a lower rate" - the RATE is the one thing that is most likely to be generally upheld in the arbitration (as objectively calculated for E/SE and applied to Nok).
HOWEVER, the room to negotiate IMO stems not from a different RATE, but from the START DATE of the "phase 2" royalty period.
From the initial PR announcement of the E/SE settlement and licenses, Loop and others here expressed SERIOUS reservations about the differing "phase 2" rate start dates for Nok (2002) versus E/SE (2003).
If as you suggest, Nok does have an MFL (most likely), then maybe Nok reasonably requested some relief for 2002, contrary to our management heels being dug in by the E/SE/Nok/Sam joint PR announcement.
As if the joint PR from our management was not foolish enough, our top leadership then indulged themselves with significant personal insider stock sales DURING the Nok negotiation which only served to cement IDCC's (perhaps unreasonable) position as to the start date. IMO, the initial PR and personal stock sales both worked to the company's serious detriment since then any significant compromise, no matter how reasonable, became a personal impossibility for our seemingly inept management.
If our initial claim is compromised by the arbitration in any way, I expect it will be mainly due to the start date discrepency going against IDCC due to Nok's MFL.
IDCC's claim for 2002 was an OBVIOUS and EASY area of compromise 2 years ago without compromising on the royalty rate going forward. Unfortunately, our management may have cemented themselves personally into an unreasonable position thereby leading to this arbitration.
We will know the arbitration results shortly. Of course, if there is a 2G/3G settlement then it may obscure a horrible mistake by our management.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
