Replies to post #30187 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

They should not..and any one who asks sensitive questions of Management relative to ongoing discussions with potential licensees..should hold on to their day job.

[3GDollars]

blue,

I don't understand the persistent disconnect here. There's a company that's willing to indemnify potential IDCC licensees to discourage them from entering into 3G contracts with IDCC.


I think the indemnity is an non-issue. I've discussed this with IDCC management, he said that this was an answer they got when they approached potential licensee. Before Ericy, the standard answer was 'you have no valid license or we are developing our own technology.' After Ericy, the new answer is 'we got indemification.' He mentioned that they heard it from 3rd party, that is, the potential licensee; that's the reason they can publicly disclosed who is the indemifier.

[jmspaesq]

BSW:Re:Indemnification

Legally I am sure that the indemnifier would quibble with your characterization of their motive 'to discourage [potential IDCC customers] from entering into 3G contracts with IDCC.'

If that were their stated intention, it could/would constitute tortious interference IMHLO (in my humble legal opinion)

I think they would characterize it as an attempt to provide a level of comfort with respect to entering into contracts with them vis a vis potential litigation for infringement by IDCC by indemnifying them for expenses of litigation and/or any judgments obtained by IDCC against them.

Just a minor clarification for the record.