Replies to post #60671 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[lastchoice]

perhaps if idcc loses, they don't want 3g smeared?
the nuances of the strategy could only be undestood by those in the know. i am confident there are reasons and strategies. RF is such a rare specialty, and the application so standardized, that i can't imagine idcc not getting their due--EVENTUALLY.

Perhaps idcc believes the lawsuit will further negotiations and bring about a 3g license without ever having to introduce their 3g portfolio the snail-like legal system. perhaps any private licenses would then have to remain within the legal rulings?

Who cares? 1,000,000,000 phones in 2008. 2x this years volume. by then, they'll be 85% wcdma!

[wilco24]

rmarchma: Someone suggested on the board yesterday that interdigital may not want to have their 3g patents involved in a lawsuit, thereby giving other OEM's cause to not pay until the lawsuit is settled.

Z

[jaykayjones]

Ronny, it is possible that Lucent has already accepted that...

IDCC (has it's own) essential CDMA2000 patents" and that the fight is solely about Tantivy IPR.

Just a thought. For once, I am on the side of IDCC's mgmt. I think that they know more than we do and I think that we have to trust them on this. They have drawn a line in the sand, they have F&J, they got good "local EasTex boys" to help, and they have chosen a fast-track court. I can't think of anything more that I would want them to do. JMO, JK

[mschere]

Is it not possible that after several months of negotiations and agreement..the parties came to an impasse which caused a narrow legal dispute known as Tantivy vs. Lucent for seven patents? HDR Specific?


Also I don't understand the strategy of not including WCDMA patents in the Lucent lawsuit. Lucent is making WCDMA infrastructure and should be infringing those essential patents too. To get WCDMA infrastructure resolved is more important than CDMA2000 infrastructure IMO, since NEC is the only one paying for WCDMA infra currently. This might keep us from having to take someone else to court over WCDMA infrastructure. Finally if Lucent is an automatic trigger for the Nokia infrastructure rate and Nokia does far more in WCDMA infrastructure than in CDMA2000, then why omit WCDMA from the Lucent suit when we can get Nokia's rate set for WCDMA infrastructure also?

[Dave Davis]

Ron, Re: Lucent

I expect that, in the conference call, they will have no problem reiterating their claim that we have essential IPR in CDMA2000. However, I doubt they will discuss the underlying strategy behind the who, when and why of suing infringers.

My guess is that the Lucent suit is a surgical strike intended enjoin Lucent from using Tantivy's IPR. Someone posted that an injunction might cause 50,000 base stations to go dark. I am not sure if the Tantivy IPR is for base stations or handsets, but the thought of that possibility is very significant.

If Tantivy has essential IPR that can cripple Lucent, then Lucent may decide to settle and enter into a combined royalty bearing license agreement with Tantivy for its CDMA2000 patents, and with ITC for its 3G IPR, including CDMA2000 and WCDMA.

If we can show the marketplace that a major manufacturer like Lucent is paying us for our 3G, it will likely be easier to negotiate with (or sue) other manufactures who are infringing on our IPR.

I believe that this is the main strategy, and that drawing out the idemnifier, and/or setting a benchmark for our most favored nation deal with Nokia will be icing on the cake.

In the wireless communication market, the law of the jungle rules. This has been proven in the past with our dealings with MOT and Nokia, etc. It's survival of the fittest.

Lucent is like a wounded water buffalo lagging behind the rest of the herd. InterDigital is like a cheetah going in for the kill.

IMHO, our strategy is to capitalize on our strengths and to attack where others are weak. Just like in the jungle.

It's nice to be the predator for a change.

[bulldzr]

rmarchma, your questions and concerns seem valid to me, and are shared by many here...I hope that what many others say is true that it is a strategic move by IDCC. I also suspect, as you do as well I imagine that most of the questions you have suggested for the CC won't be asked, and wouldn't be answered it they were. I think we can forget about anything of substance to be shared concerning either the LU lawsuit ("We can't comment about current litigation..."), or the NOK arbitration ("things are going along as expected...these things take time...etc."), or even the JPO issues.

From your post...

"One reason for my question on this matter is to get IDCC to reaffirm in a public CC to others that IDCC does have essential patents in CDMA2000, outside of the Tantivy patents. However, I am still confused over the strategy of just using the Tantivy patents in the litigation suit."

As ST1640 and others have pointed out...our Company's abilities in spelling and grammar is somewhat lacking. Is it possible that patent applications filled with similar mistakes can cause problems with the patent authorities and effect the enforcement thereof? I don't know this, maybe sjratty and other legal types can comment...but for instance if IDCC applied for a cellular communications patent and it read like "cellaloid computations" wouldn't we expect the JPO to have a problem with it?...LOL!

Have a great weekend! I'm going Rodeo-ing!

http://www.rodeohouston.com

My 12 year old son won us some tickets by winning "Best of Show" in his School District...Yeah!

http://www.rodeohouston.com/education/school_art_prog.aspx

[infinite_q]

rmarchma, have you considered the possibility that LU is not disputing the essentiality of IDCC's CDMA2000 patents - that only the Tantivy CDMA2000 patents are being disputed?

I believe that the real sticking point between LU and IDCC is the overall CDMA2000 rate. I think they had come to terms in principal on WCDMA (FDD and TDD) and TDMA/GPRS/EDGE. I believe that LU offered some lower rate for CDMA2000 than IDCC is now asking for, based on the strength of the combined IDCC/Tantivy patents.

If I'm right, then there would be no need to risk any of the WCDMA or IDCC-originated CDMA2000 patents in a suit. The only thing that would need to be resolved between them is the essentiality and infringement of the Tantivy patents.

[no_chkn_lil]

Marchma: Love your contributions to the board. Re your questions following:

"It seems to me that if IDCC is going to all of the trouble of initiating a lawsuit against Lucent, then shouldn't they bring in most all of the heavy artillery that they can muster, which would include some of IDCC's own essential CDMA2000 patents. Go all out for the win, or exert maximum pressure for a settlement, by making your case against the infringer as strong as possible. Why hold back if you might be going to court?"

Could it be that IDCC is using the Tantivy lawsuit as a vehicle to bring LU to the table to settle all Tantivy and ITC claims? The Tantivy Shareholders would be, in effect, subsidizing IDCC's IP enforcement expense? As I recall, IDCC bought the assets of Tantivy, not Tantivy itself, so if the Tantivy Shareholders participate in net income from the assets sold to IDCC, then they are shouldering the legal costs.

Anyone?