Replies to post #151261 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Ghors]

Olddog: NOK has the burden of proof to prove fraudulent statements about the essentiallity of the patents by IDCC. The various definitions of fraud include words such as willfull, intentional, intention to deceive, with knowledge of falsehood, with intent to harm, etc. It's a tough burden of proof.

Then even if they prove fraud, they have to prove damages, i.e. that someone refused to buy their products as a result of IDCC's fraudulent statements regarding their patents. As part of this proof, then must show how much money their lost. Mere speculation won't do.

IMO, then have virtually no chance.

Ghors

[laranger]

O'Dog/Loop.

I still have one question:

Example:

1. You decide to become a manufacturer of cell phones, and use 50 patents from various inventors.

2. Two patents are "declared" essential, so you license them.

3. The remaining 48 are owned by other inventors, who did not declare essentiality. But, they are great patents and, taken together, they make your phone work to its optimum, and you take 25% of the market.

So, why didn't you license the other 48? Your engineers said you might be able to work around them. But this could take months of trial and error, and millions in R&D expense, and there wouild still be no guarantee of success.

And besides, you wanted to get to market. So you deliberately stole the ideas of others, and infringed 48 patents.

My point is: Simply telling a judge you can do a "work-around", doesn't mean you can. But, it's tacit admission that you're a thief.

And failing to declare essentiality doesn't make a patent non-essential.

So. In a nutshell, what the hell is the judge deciding in the U.K.?