Bulldzer
They are grants, not purchases. BTW, do not fall into the collusion game with Samsung. They did just as any other company would do under the same or similar circumstances. They waived their 120 day delay advantage and told the arbitration group to set a rate according to the Nok license. IDCC forced them into this position with a very overreaching interpretation of the Samsung Arbitration decision. Samsung cannot and will not pay until the Nok rate is set regardless of how IDCC interprets the former panel's ruling. Nok is still performing under the terms of its license with IDCC and when the new arbitration panel sets a rate under the Nok license then Samsung will be bound under the same terms under its MFL clause.
I presented the fact situation to 4 retired judges, two at the trial level and two at the appellate level. All four concluded that IDCC has no action against Samsung until a rate is set under the terms of the Nok license. Since Nok is acting properly under the terms of its license, Samsung is merely along because IDCC placed them there. This is why Samsung has asked for concurrent arbitration and requested that the panel set a rate. As much as I dislike Nok, the accusations of Samsung engaging in collusion are not founded this time. This is not to say that it will not happen in 3g. It appears that collusion is a way of life in the wireless world.
MO
loop
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
