Replies to post #51167 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

Question..Was not IDCC's patent scope a factor in determining a 2G license for Ericsson and Sony/Ericsson..and thereby deciding not to litigate? Did they not sign after the PSJ was in place and not VACATED?Do you think that an Arbitration Panel will seek to vacate a Court order? Do you think the Nokia 1999 contract made reference to IDCC's patent scope in the context of Nokia and IDCC coming to terms by themselves on a 2G rate (an option by the way that Nokia chose not to exercise)?TIA


However, Nokia is asserting that the contract includes reference to patent scope for setting the rate. If Nokia's representation is accurate, then we could be going back to square one, which would be depressing as hell. I hope that Nokia is not correct on this point, but I now understand what Shallow Mind was saying when he pointed out my earlier post may have been more hopeful than objective.

[3GDollars]

Even if Nokia is correct, the arb panel will decide on a rate; might not be the same rate as that for Ericy and SNE, but still a payment.

Now, if Nokia is to assert invalidity of IDCC patent, then it is not up to the arb panel to decide on this issue; Nokia has to file objection with the Patent court.

This is just MHO.

trigger company signed the rate was set. I thought that by using selected companies the assumption was that they would reach a fair market rate based on all the information, including the relative strength of the various patents. However, Nokia is asserting that the contract includes reference to patent scope for setting the rate. If Nokia's representation is accurate, then we could be going back to square one, which would be depressing as hell. I hope that Nokia is not correct on this point, but I now

[witchhollow]

All, I think it's important to remember that the arbitration process was a provision of the 1999 contract between NOK and IDCC. So in reality NOK is still abiding by the contract by going to arbitration. If NOK didn't think the contract had any merit they would have said "screw this contract,screw arbitration we are not paying you" way back in March.IMHO

The arbitration is not taking place to define whether the contract is valid or not, it is taking place to once and for all define the financial terms of the agreement.

All the other stuff is merely posturing by NOK prior to arbitration and also(I believe)NOK attempting to weaken management in the eyes of shareholders to bolster their chances of IDCC being more accommidating not only in arbitration but in buyout discussions....

Ken