Replies to post #199707 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

To those who are trying to figure out who the document is referring to:

For Samsung's original filing:

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff ,
vs.
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, and
TANTIVY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendants.


For IDCC's counterclaim:

INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC and INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,
Counterclaim and
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
Counterclaim Defendant,
and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC,
Third Party Defendants.

[infinite_q]

gio, if we assume that SAM initiated the SAM III arbitration for the purpose of delaying confirmation of SAM II award then it would make sense that they would now consider ending SAM III and all other actions between the parties related to 2G. If we further assume that SAM is now interested in negotiating the best 3G deal they can using the SAM II award payment as leverage they have a limited time to do so. This extension gives SAM a brief window to negotiate with IDCC on terms for a broad licensing agreement. They can probably get more concessions from IDCC on the SAM II award payment and terms of a 3G license by negotiating a package deal now than they would get by continuing SAM III.

They know they are just pizzing up the proverbial rope.

[spencer]

Wasn't there a filing that was due a couple weeks ago, and then it got extended? Could it be that same filing once again got extended? Too many cases going on...

[JimLur]

To all, Here's the file Gio sent me yesterday.

http://wirelessledger.com/IDCC_dec5a_show_case_doc.pdf


xxx