Spencer re Samsung's estimated royalties you said:
...."If the estimated royalties for Samsung have not changed since 2003, and Samsung has sold more phones than was estimated in 2003, then doesn't that mean that Samsung gets to pay a lower rate?"
From the IDCC CC on July 5 as follows:
...."As to Samsung, in the March 17, 2003 press release dealing with Ericsson and Sony Ericsson license agreement, we provided some guidance on Samsung's royalty obligations based on the terms of those agreements. Specifically, we stated that Samsung would owe InterDigital approximately 22 million to 27 million for 2002 sales. In addition, based on Samsung prepaying its 2003 and 2004 royalties, we would have recorded revenue of approximately 20 to 24 million for 2003 sales. Based on our application of the Nokia tribunal's award and updated information as to Samsung's sales for the years 2002 through 2004, we believe those original estimates are still valid and the actual amounts could be somewhat higher based upon prepayment discounts for past sales no longer being available."
I think that IDCC is trying to be very conservative on the possible Samsung royalties. I don't think that they are even trying to factor in Samsung's increased 2G market share yet. I believe that Samsung will be paying the S/E handset royalty rate, not the leading volume-based Nokia royalty rate.
Samsung's sales volume is much more comparable to S/E rather than to Nokia. If Samsung was entitled to the lowest Nokia rate based upon its own sales volume, then Samsung's estimated royalty would have been roughly one half of the initial estimated royalties in 2003, which were based upon the S/E royalty rates.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
