Replies to post #72490 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[amrwonderful]

jai: why couldn't IDCC settle with SAM for 2G and sign a rate for 3G, instead and leave NOK holding the bag. I think NOK is playing a dangerous game right now. Their marketshare is eroding and SAM would be smart to do something to smack NOK around a bit. Plus it looks like the Japanese have been a little bit more cooperative than our Euro friends. It will be interesting to see how this plays out....Probably nothing like anyone has conjectured on this board.

[Dishfan]

jai, it's funny, I always favored a sweetheart, win/win settlement w/ERICY so we could move on to 3G. Now, I think InterDig has to "dig" in against NOK for a number of reasons; the most important of which is the MFL clause in existing licenses. Also, any giveaway to NOK will likely be a giveaway to all current infringers.

I will not be surprised if InterDig holds out for entire Arbitration process - there's too much money at stake (and the timeline is definite).

I'm here for 3G, but I just can't see InterDig walking away from $3/4Billion (the approximate amount owed by NOK, Samsung and all 2G infringers).

[lochnroll]

Jai: There is a big difference in Ericsson and Nokia in that we settled for far less then was sought because we contended Ericsson INFRINGED.
Nokia on the otherhand willingly signed a detailed contract with Interdigital! The world knows the amount of handsets sold beginning January 1st, 2002,that Nokia agreed to pay royalties on. So the monies calimed due weren't produced out of anything but a royalty for what they themself inked to PAY.

[jaykayjones]

jai; nice thought...

"Time for a WIN-WIN deal like the Ericsson settlement so both sides will be happy."

Unfortunately, (playing the devil's advocate here again), there's more than just "both sides" involved. The consequences of any settlement with Nokia - at materially less than the very public amounts touted by IDCC in March 2003 and elsewhere since - could have serious repercussions with the third (and so far silent) party to such a settlement; i.e. investors who bought the "watershed" story.

I hope this doesn't come to pass but, if the final amount accepted by IDCC is much less than what the company has lead us to believe, then there are going to be a large number of investors claiming they were misled and looking for restitution. In this litigious age, I don't have to spell out what that could mean.

In defense, IDCC may claim that - at the time of the Ericsson settlement - they were convinced that Judge Sanders' adverse rulings had been negated with respect to Nokia. My thinking is that unless IDCC appeals and gets the June 3, 2004 ruling over-turned, there're new ground rules out there and a basis for IDCC to accept lower payments from Nokia, Samsung, and potentially others. (I fully accept that E and S/E signed up knowing the Sanders' rulings).

JMDAOAVMATG-ATM (Just my devil's advocate opinion and very much against the groundswell - at the moment), JK