InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[spencer]

Nok's main argument seems to be that since E did not sell "all" their handset assets to the JV, but only "some" or "most" of their handset assets, then SE cannot be a trigger.

If ERICY still has some handset assets, then wouldn't our license with ERICY also specify a rate for those handsets (and I would imagine that rate would be the same as the SONY-ERICY rate). So if Nokia wants to say that SONY-ERICY isn't a trigger, fine, then ERICY is the trigger. Nokia loses either way.


Nok also argues that IDCC and E improperly manipulated the period 1 and 2 payments to the disadvantage of Nok

Even if that is true, is there anything illegal about that? I strongly doubt it. Why wouldn't any company want to negotiate terms that are favorable to them and unfavorable to their competitors? Seems like a smart way of doing business. Anyways, Nokia did have the chance to determine the rate on their own before the ERICY/SONY-ERICY settlement, so they can't cry now and say that they don't like the rate that ERICY/SONY-ERICY determined for them.


that the interest charges and lack of prepayment discount on the past due amounts are punitive to Nok

What the hell is Nokia talking about? IDCC in their press release stated that there would be a $20 million prepayment discount. Is Nokia illiterate?