Replies to post #208484 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Desert dweller]

Revlis, I guess I am showing my legal ignorance, but who cares what French law says when it is an agency of the US who is trying to determine whether or not a company is stealing a US company's IPR?

I walk into a hotel in Paris which gives me an implied contract that they will rent me a room for a fair rate. I stay all week and at the end of the week I tell them I don't think the rate is fair and I leave without paying and tell them we can negotiate rates later. Is that stealing according to French law? Will I be locked up? What is the difference between that and what Nokia is doing? They are using our property without compensating us and have been for how many years? How long is Nokia allowed to steal and how long should IDCC put up with it? I think it is just more legal BS by Nokia to cloud up the facts. The good thing is we have judges who will be able to see right through it IMO.

Message In Reply To:
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

[plumear]

rev"is, concerning your statement "It would have to be NOK providing clear and convincing evidence that IDCC patents are essential.", it may depend on whether IDCC has declared the patents to be essential, which I assume they have since Mr. Aynes brought the argument, that causes the first hurdle to be crossed. Just an observation. However, after reading Mr. Aynes "expert" opinion, I have a very hard time believing the Judge would accept any of that crap. There is so much convoluted thinking in his statement that it's difficult to even discuss it, IMO.