No it isn't it is simply asking about the Samsung request for certain documents. My God can't I ask a civil question? I am trying to get to the root of what is happening or has happened. If Samsung thinks it has importance then why shouldn't we think it. Samsung asked for doumentation of a settlement if I am not mistaken in one of the latter paragraphs or it could have been just legal mumbo jumbo.
I may not be liked and don't care but I do think I have tried to represent my view only when asked or challenged. I now switched to what went on at the legal proceedings to exercise what I think has happened, and that Nokia and IDCC does have some sort of written agreement. Does any bantering between parties and what price they just talk about mean a darn thing or should be admissable in any court. If a agreement has been reached is that admissable. I would think not as it should be between the 2 parties, and not for using to settle what price the litigant should pay. If they have no MFL 3G agreement then they shouldn't have access to a thing in my opinion.
I don't know if the court allowed or disallowed Samsung access. Can you or anyone say if they did get access to just negotiations if no settlement?
I disagree with you and agree with mickey. I think there is an agreement. I just do not think it is a complete agreement. There is no agreement on rates as of the last cc.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
