Last time I looked at the box score, it read Samsung 100 mil IDCC 500 thousand. IDCC stated in SEC documents that Samsung owed 100 million dollars for under reporting its sales. Samsung said no we do not because you gave away the technology to Nok for 31 mil during the years that you are seeking royalty from us. Samsung further said that they had an MFL clause which IDCC must honor to avoid giving Nok a commercial advantage over them a valued customer. The arbitrators found that Samsung indeed had the MFL clause and that IDCC was mistaken about the 100 mil claim for under reporting. Looks like a win, smells like a win and is a win for Samsung.
You have question marks indicating that my eyes and nose are inaccurate. Do you have any information to the contrary that would perhaps shed a more favorable light on the decision of the Arbitrators? I would love to hear it and get that old school boy trophy roaring again.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
