Replies to post #75944 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

"if anyone would be sued for infringement, it would be one of their largest competitors" - this point is evidence to me that NOK intended to harm their competitors, so it is certainly disingenuous for NOK to now claim that Ericy and IDCC intended to harm NOK. This is another point that I hope IDCC will emphasize to the arb. panel.

MO,
Corp_Buyer

[mschere]

Without having viewed the ACTUAL 1999 License contract...I do believe that Nokia even without a named trigger signing with IDCC could avoid the inevitable fact that they will pay IDCC a fair and reasonable rate for 2G and 3G for all their covered sales from 2002 to date...That is why there was an BINDING ARBITRATION clause(to enforce the INTENT of the License)..The signing of Sony/Ericsson merely expedited the date of Arbitration..I am certain that the Contract provided for the possibility that Nokia could possibly achieve 100% market share..and still have to pay for IDCC's IP...


NOK's trigger clause is a very, very clever mechanism. The trigger clause ensured that (a) NOK could not be sued for infringement (since they had a license), (b) they may never have to pay (if there is no trigger event), and (c) if anyone would be sued for infringement, it would be one of their largest competitors (Ericy in this case). This clause was very, very clever IMO.

However, Nok miscalculated in betting that IDCC would not win or settle with Ericy. After 10 years of litigation and some MSJ rulings against IDCC, this seemed like a good bet to NOK up until the settlement actually occurred.