InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[osoesq]

Over the last several years, we have seen any number of instances where ERICY has entered into alliances or contracts for future development of products and technology. Would it not be reasonable to assume that in each of those instances, the contracting party(ies) has conducted extensive due dilligence as to whether or not there would be an ERICY in the future? Wouldn't that due dilligence have required some reassurrances from ERICY that they would either prevail upon or resolve IDCC? Furthermore, wouldn't those parties who were told that ERICY would prevail, have asked them for a peek at the proof that they would prevail? Wouldn't that peek at the proof have sent the parties scurrying to their engineers and lawyers to determine if the supposed proof was adequate? Given what we now know, wouldn't it seem that ERICY's argument that they would prevail doesn't seem sustainable.

Isn't it more likely, that the parties were told that IDCC did have the goods and that ERICY would resolve the matter in due time?