Replies to post #28311 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[ellismd]

As for as I am concern IDCC is still unsuccessful in getting additional 3g licensing and 2g is still limping along. If IDCC as you previously stated didn't settle with ERICY they would be in a serious cash flow crunch. Although I believe ERICY knew very well that they where infringing they had many avenues to take if they sustained a lost in Court. One example of their fortitude is the Harris Trial. Clear lost for ERICY but they are still pursuing the matter vigorously. Now back to IDCC. There licensing Counsel are pursuing other infringers that are still putting the squeeze on them. How can I say this because knowing the conditions of ERICY and IDCC settlement the terms and conditions for figuring out other infringers cost is easy and all the other language is already supplied by ERICY'c contract which would be the baseline for all discussions. Almost 3 months have past and nothing to show, however this could be one of those popular plays by IDCC no announcement until the money hits the bank account i.e. Nok signed in January announced in February and so on. I have several contract specialist that have informed me that it is plausible to extend receipt of payment after contract signed easily with a few words.
Proposal #2 IS ASKING FOR A LARGE AMOUNT OF ISO'S. WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT IT REQUIRES MANAGEMENT TO HAVE SHARES AT THEIR DISPOSAL THIS YEAR? WHY CAN THEY NOT WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR AFTER SOME REAL HARD CORE TANGIBLES THAT SMOOTH OUT REVENUE FLOW OR IF NECESSARY THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF ACUISITION WAIT AND CALL A SPECIAL MEETING FOR VOTES. IN ANY OF THE CASES I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE FULL SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY WHEREAS NOW I THINK THEY MAYBE SLIDE PASS WITH A LITTLE OVER 50% OR FAIL.

[jmspaesq]

Loop/Data:Loop's Post Says IT All!

Or pretty much all of it, succinctly and eloquently and almost certainly better than I could have said it. Lots of specific details explaining 'the mandate.'

Anything I might add I said seperately (and virtually simultaneously):

Investors Hub - InterDigital Communications  (IDCC)Post #28312
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1041241

[ziploc_1]

Loophole: a good summary but
Aren't we still in a tight cash flow situation now? True we have a few bucks from Ericy. Merritt says Sharp will sign but they haven't yet, two months after their old license lapsed. Nok may go to arbitration and that puts us back to about where we were several months ago without the prospect of a dramatically favorable resolution with Ericy.

[marlong13]

I agree with the gist of your post. The more I have thought about it, however, the more I lean toward believing that the "mandate" may have been from the insurance company covering the litigation. Maybe there was a statute of limitations or time period in which litigation had to be completed or coverage lapsed. Depending on when the start date would have been triggered, a ten year limit of some type could have been approaching.

On another topic, I wonder if you (or others) have calculated the maximum time (assuming the language is the same in the NOK/Samsung contracts as it is in the ERICY agreement) before arbitration HAS to kick in. Some of the language is subject to interpretation, and I have concluded it could be as early as mid June or as late as the end of September.