Replies to post #208447 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[hacitra]

didn't the chief legal officer of ETSI issue a memo stating that they do not get involved in determining commercial licenses or the rates thereto?

[revlis]

loophole,

Thanks. That is why I say he would have a jury confused. He sounded so confident in his testimony. A great show.

What impressed me and probably a jury was his declaration that Mr. Calvert misrepresented everything he said and then made point by point how he said the opposite what Mr. Calvert said he said. You are right. Mt. Corey at his best.

mo

[jhaw]

Yea, I'm no lawyer but it sounds like Nokia's expert is arguing that, by declaring patents essential to the ETSI, IDCC is offering a license to all manufacturers. Apparently, according to French law, a lease contract (which he likens to a license) doesn't require the price to be determined at the time of the contract, so there is already an implied contract and Nokia is licensed! According to his argument, the price of the license, and the fact that Nokia isn't paying anything for the license, are not important.

I can't imagine that the ITC is going to say "sure, you're licensed and it doesn't matter if you don't pay anything for the license because the French say so".

[Desert dweller]

When did French law dictate what happens in the US? The fact remains, products are being imported into this country and payments are not being made to the patent owner. No matter what some French guy says, there is no contract in the good ole USA IMO. For a contract to be in force according to my memory of business law classes over 20 years ago, there must be consideration for a contract to be valid. No consideration, no contract in the US, at least that is what I was taught LOL. I bet there are other socialist and communist countries that have even more idiotic laws that would probably support Nokia's grand theft also, are they going to try bringing those laws and interpretations over here to support their theft too?

Message In Reply To:
Revlis

He is saying that all manufacturers are licensed under a third party beneficiary status through ETSI and that the price can be determined later. He then tap dances saying when price or rate is negotiated later, it is then that the IPR holder may refuse the license. Nok has refused to negotiate a price thus far so they are licensed to use the patent claims asserted by IDCC. He says the written portion is the ETSI agreement. Apparently, you must assume that the patent claims are essential to producing the product by the manufacturer.

Has Nok or Samsung admitted that the patent claims being asserted are essential? No, the last time I looked they denied that the claims even intersected their products.

If the ITC (our government) buys this guy's bullshit, then it is time for a revolution.

MO
loop

[revlis]

loophole,

Before Mr. Ayne's testimony can even be accepted by the ALJ, the ALJ has to makes 6 or 7 decisions and all favorable to Nokia with Nokia providing clear and convincing evidence in everyone of those decisions. I can not see how Nokia can jump over any of the hurdles and Nokia would have to jump over all the hurdles in order for Mr. Ayne's testimony to have any meaning.

The first is whether the patents are essential? The ALJ has to have clear and convincing proof that the patents are essential. It would have to be NOK providing clear and convincing evidence that IDCC patents are essential.

I will list the other questions.

2. Is there an implied contract?

3. Does the implied contract have the same status as a written or verbal contract?

4. What is the French law concerning contracts?

5. What does the French law have to say about contracts that does not have a price?

6. Is it applicable to this US case?

mo