Replies to post #75761 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Dave Davis]

In reviewing Nokia's reply (especially the footnotes), and considering that InterDigital is appealling Judge Lynn's ruling to allow release of the documents, there is now way this arbitration is going to get settled prior to January of 2005. I don't see the arbitration moving forward until this issue is resolved.

My guess is that we will soon get an 8-K announcing a pushout of the date of the expected resolution of the arbitration.

[Ghors]

DD:

Of potential interest is on page 3 of the motion wherein ERICY states that NOK entered into a license with IDCC which tied royalty rates to the license agreement between ERICY, SONY ERICY and IDCC. While this is merely a statement of counsel, one would think it would not be made by counsel if NOK was claiming that Sony/Ericy was not a trigger.

Also, one of the exhibits to the filing contains the protective orders on confidentiality issued by the arb panel which are also sought to be modified by ERICY the same as in Judge Lynn's court. It now appears that NOK and ERICY are fighting the same battle on two fronts.

From the exhibits, NOK is claiming to the arb panel that IDCC and ERICY have secret agreements not contained elsewhere that they are trying to hide and conceal from NOK. NOK is also claiming that IDCC is withholding documents.

Finally, for those who may be interested or have the ability to check backgrounds, the names of the panel members are contained on page 25 of the filing.

The plot thickens.

IMO
Ghors