InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[loophole73]

f6 5

One more thought in support of a ban.

5. Nokia engaged the services of IDCC to develop W-TDD technology in 1999. They executed a license for 3g technology at that time with a rate to be named under a three tiered set of options. Their personnel had access to the labs and library of IDCC for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. They whistled while we worked. They promised many things under the agreement, but actually only kept one which was to pay 58 million for our ramp up of employees and facilities to fullfil our promised obligations. 3g was launched and Nokia sold phones like hotcakes. They led the league in production and sales, but stonewalled any efforts to set a royalty rate. In 2006, they repudiated the 3g license with promises to enter into a new license. IDCC forgave any past royalty and agreed not to litigate for a period of time to execute the new license. The stonewalling continued until IDCC had no choice other than filing for enforcement. April of this year will mark 7 years since the repudiation and agreement to enter into a new license. They have continued the stonewalling and we are now in three enforcement actions as they continue to game the system. Their bait and switch tactics have cost IDCC 100 million dollars in enforcement. If a ban is not issued in a fact situation like this, royalty rates can only escalate because of very expensive prosecution costs which is not good for the sector, the operators, and the end users of the wireless systems in existence today and in the future. Other potential licensees and existing licensees have refused to license and/or renew licenses because of the actions of Nokia. You cannot blame them when a competitor is not paying fair royalty to its advantage over its competitors in the sector. A ban will go a long way to right some serious wrongs and deter others from engaging in the same behavior. We certainly do not want to lose our inventors to another country that deals swiftly with infringers. America has been pro invention since its inception and must continue to do so to incent the innovations that have made us the leader around the world. If we want to again foster manufacturing, we must protect our inventors against the infringement by foreign manufacturers. When in Rome should also be followed by when in America.

MO
loop