Replies to post #402018 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

Gungrey: You state that "Nokia never denied that they owed IDCC, just the amount.". I would say the opposite. I believe that Nokia never stated that they owe IDCC.

What has been brought out in the trials is that there was disagreement during negotiations over what was an appropriate royalty (FRAND) rate that should apply in a license. Once they agreed on the royalty rate, then it would have been normal to negotiate how much of a payment should be made for past sales since the 2006 settlement. I believe a large portion of Nokia's sales since then have been in 2G models for developing counties, for which Nokia had a paid up license.

In any event it looks like Nokia's delaying tactics won. Unless there is a settlement with Microsoft, we will have to wait for the results of Delaware Case against Microsoft to see if IDCC collects anything related to Nokia's prior sales.

[gejebr3]

MSFT bought NOK's past/ongoing royalty liabilities when they bought NOK - hence the carryover/accounting writedowns for active patent infringement litigation suits

MSFT is (and has been) on the hook for NOK's past sales - jmo