Loophole
I will ask you if you was representing IDCC would you not argue that not a single license with IDCC is relevant to the value of the IDCC patent portfolio? The reason would be I think apparent if Nokia the biggest manufacture had licensed IDCC for a frandly rate from day 1 that IDCC would have attained a lot higher rate than they had to license their patents in order to survive. I think you would also say the proof is in the pudding, that Nokia fought IDCC on 2G which they finally lost and had to pay. Yet once again Nokia exercised the fight don't pay steal do everything you possibly can to ruin a company whose technology you need to license. In doing this since you was the main manufacture your actions forces any small company to have to do deals that otherwise they would refuse, but they had to have money in order to stay in business. This practice by Nokia although was indirect in the negotiations and the rate IDCC accepted, the rates was lower because IDCC had to have money to fight Nokia, and to pay employees. This could have easily been avoided with a fair negotiation and reasonable rate even below what Nokia's own people said a essential patent was worth. Now as always ever action causes a reaction and Nokia's action was fight delay, and the IDCC'S reaction was try to survive and stay in business, and if they did that they had to take far less than their patents were worth.
I ask if I may didn't QCOM say if you violate just 1 patent you owed 5% and Nokia says 1 patent was worth 2 1/2% and I assure you IDCC had offered Nokia from day 1 a frandly rate that was and I am sure they had and have records of rates that was turned down by Nokia in regards to 2G, and I am sure IDCC can easily provide the judge, jury or whomever the very reasonable and frandly rates that Nokia turned down for 3G, which once again makes IDCC have to try to stay in business due to Nokia's failure to be fair and IDCC now has to lower the rate, and then Nokia seeks the luxury of well they licensed xyz at a lower rate. In conclusion Nokia has road rough shod over small companies forcing them to lower the value of their assets and if they didn't break them then use those rates to benefit Nokia. This is a practice that has to be stopped and not only stopped but penalized for using such tactics. This type argument I think would be exactly what you would probably demonstrate. If Nokia had been fair IDCC would have saved many many millions of dollars not only with fighting Nokia but others. IDCC would have had higher rates with every licensee, because of the Nokia behavior in the past and presently. If you can't see the advantage Nokia gets by using this tactic you surely would have to be blind, and nothing less than the max a court can establish and treble that is the only way to stop this behavior, and to encourage entrepenurs to develop new technology. Otherwise companies like Nokia will break and steal the right to the technology that they should be paying a reasonable rate. You can easily see have Nokia produce a past practice record that shows the don't pay and fight action is a huge part of their modus operanda. Justice has got to prevail and frandly should be exercised before court proceedings not afterwards.
JMO
Mickey
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
