Replies to post #39106 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[sjratty]

One correction: The grant of summary judgment as to a claim IS a final judgment (that can, but does not have to be, appealed). Indeed, if you lose on summary judgment, the claim does not even make it to a jury.

[Eneerg]

2112... might add that IDCC will more than likely raise the issue... "What harm has NOK incurred as the result of the Ericy/Interdigital settlement?"

Note: Interdigital contractually complied by virtue of a settlement, thus triggering a requirement for payment by NOK and ultimately Samsung consistent with the MFL court settlement terms for Ericy, and out of court settlement with Sony-Ericsson.

[GAB]

Howard always proclaimed that the relationship with NOK was excellent. It could be that it was NOK's plan all along, even before the ERICY settlement, to challenge the agreement in court. The motion filed by NOK on 7/22 was just beyond the 120 period to seek resolution. This motion ,no doubt, required months of research and was not drafted overnight. It could be that IDCC was blindsided by NOK's actions, thinking all along that a cordial agreement would be a slam dunk. After all, NOK had even provided for the liability in their financials, as verified by Tom Carpenter. This would explain the request for a 30 day extension by IDCC to draft a counter motion, something they were not prepared to do. I think both Bill Merritt and Rip sounded a little shell shocked during the conference call. This surprise move by NOK caught them completely off guard. The question now is...why didn't NOK negotiate in good faith, and what was the reason for the inflamatory nature of their motion. All IMO