InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[0nceinalifetime]

Fmilt, I assure you that post was entirely sincere but it perhaps could have been worded more clearly. I was just surprised at the way the term "MFL clause" was being used. I guess if the report is accurate in the context of how it discussed the MFL clause, then I believe it means the clause is broader than I originally thought. In other words, not only can the MFL clause be used to obtain a lower rate at a future date, it can also be used to set the initial rate. If that's the way it's being used it confuses the licensing issues.

In a sense it's counting IDCC's chickens before they hatch. IDCC is saying Nokia agreed to pay us, but not any more than others are paying, and not until the others do. To me, that's not much better than no license at all. I am fairly certain the major manufacturers get together and have discussion amongst themselves and behind closed doors to develop a strategy to deal with pesky IDCC. I say "pesky" not in a derogatory sense but looking at it through the manufacturers eyes. They don't want to pay any more than necessary and probably feel that IDCC was just being opportunistic by filing all those patents around others inventions hoping to be able to set a couple of legal hooks that will allow them to collect a few royalties in the future. These other companies will have to come to some sort of agreement with IDCC or go to court and argue that IDCC's patents happened after the fact and are not applicable to existing products. They can only hope that their version of justice prevails.

Once