Replies to post #38790 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[floridian ggg]

loop: "It would almost...

...be worth telling them that they can have 2002 for their rights to W-TDD."

I'd be for this in a New York minute.

[Corp_Buyer]

Best 'MANDATE' explanation- "They had to make a choice in early 2003 about appealing any adverse rulings by Judge Sanders" ... Loop, the scenario you painted is the best explanation I have heard for the "mandate". I have always thought it was judicial and cash flow driven. The time frame to appeal the adverse ruling by Sanders seems to explain the judicial pressure. Combined with the financial pictures of IDCC, Ericy, Sharp, etc. completes the picture for the "mandate". As part of the settlement, apparently, the parties mutually agreed for the court to vacate the adverse ruling, thankfully. And as we know, Sharp has renewed and Ericy is now paying. Next we will bring Nok in line and commence 3G licenses. We're down to the short strokes now.

Regards,
Corp_Buyer

[ziploc_1]

Loop I agree with you on Nok. Rough business practices are expected and accepted but Nok has really gone beyond. They have attacked management personally and may have inflicted grave harm on them personally. This will be remembered by managements of other companies long after the other details of the dispute with Idcc are forgotten. The word will be out that it is dangerous on a PERSONAL as well as on a business level to do deals with Nok.