Replies to post #47936 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Dave Davis]

Greg:

Thanks for your analysis. I take comfort in the market's reaction to this lawsuit. Especially because, as you observe, this issue is much more simple than the ERICY patent litigation.

This document is much more easy to evaluate than say, the Special Master's report from the Markman hearing.

My guess is that institutional investors have probably referred this to their in-house legal counsel for review. Based on what we have seen so far, they don't seem too concerned.

Thanks again Greg, and have a nice weekend. Winter is upon us here in California. We have some clouds and it may only get up into the 60's today.

Dave

[rmarchma]

Ghors re the Federal Insurance dispute you said:

...."Regarding IDCC's acknowledgement. We will probably allege that we were intimidated and coerced. I picked this up from our statements regarding our fear that they would refuse to pay any further litigation expenses"

But what about IDCC's tentative acknowledgement of the 2000 Reimbursement Agreement with Federal AFTER the Ericy settlement. Why did IDCC publicly acknowledge and accrue an insurance reimbursement of $3.4m, 10% of the settlement according to one provision in the Reimbursement Agreement, in the first quarter earnings report? At this point there was NO longer any threat that Federal might quit paying the legal costs, so why publicly acknowledge and accrue liability on an agreement that IDCC believed was legally invalid and unenforceable?

My other question pertains to the amount that IDCC is claiming Federal owes us. It appears to include the $157,000 that IDCC has already reimbursed Federal. I believe that you think IDCC will also try to claim the $5 million of out-of-pocket legal expenses that IDCC had to pay. If Federal limited the per hour legal fees in 1993 to $240, then hasn't the statute of limitations expired on IDCC's right to the $5m extra legal fees that they were willing to pay?

[Desert dweller]

Gregg, thanks for your analysis. You said:

"PS
This will not be a ten year battle. The discovery is relatively simple compared to the infringement issues of the ERICY case. There also won't be a need for a five year abatement to await appeals and the patent office decisions on revalidation. I would guess a trial could be had in a year and one-half, with mediation likely.

JMO"

Personally I don't care if it takes 10 years to resolve. The only time period I want it to take is longer than it takes for us to get paid from Nokia & Samsung. It would be great if we win this and we don't even have to pay them the 3.4 million but even if we had to pay them the entire amount (which would make me sick) it wont matter if we are sitting with north of $500 million in the bank. I just hope this is delayed until after all the money comes in from all the thieving scum that are out there.