Comparing '99 to 2002, we see a real change in the relative market shares.
2002:
NOK 151m
MOT 64m
SAM 41m
Siemens 34m
SONY/ERICY 23m
It is clear that NOK's approach is to say that (a) SONY/ERICY is not a legal successor to ERICY and is therefore not a trigger under the contract terms, or (b) SONY/ERICY has fallen out of the top three and therefore does not constitute a trigger.
Samsung was obviously convinced to go along with NOK because if NOK is making the argument that only the top three manufacturers should be considered triggers for their royalties then SAM would now fall into that category. Samsung has nothing to lose by playing along with NOK.
Of course, once the arbitrators rule IDCC will know exactly where they stand and what it will take to get NOK to pay. A loss in the current arbitration simply means that IDCC will have to sweeten the pot for MOT or SAM to get a license with a triggering entity.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
