InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[The Count]

This doesn't sound good to me

What those strings were are blacked out in the document, but Pinkert adds in the next sentence: "it is neither fair nor non-discriminatory for the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent to require licenses to non-FRAND-encumberd patents as a condition for licensing its patent" (emphasis his).

This sounds like bundling to me - requiring Apple to have a license that covers all of it's patents, not just the patents in the litigation. This objection could also apply to requiring a world wide license instead of just U.S. sales. If that is the case, then FRAND is being defined in a way that does not bode well for IDCC. I don't think the ITC can give IDCC the hammer it deserves. The veto sets a very disturbing precedent.

After posting I saw Loop's post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=90678779 that lays out a good case for why the piecemeal approach should not be enforced. Unfortunately I've seen too many examples of judges ignoring very sound and well reasoned arguments and focusing on other issues that results in a loss for IDCC. While it gives me some hope, it does not make me optimistic.