Loophole
I have slept on your comments, and I just have to disagree with you. It is stand up and fight now or IDCC will forever be underpaid for the value of their patents.
You said the jury would be alienated if you tried to show Nokia deprived IDCC of money. First I disagree because I think its the truth, and dumb azz me I still believe truth is supposed to prevail. Second a jury is comprised as you well know of just lay people who normally root for the underdog.
You said they would be looking at the IDCC cash position and bonuses paid. I say as a attorney you drive the truth home that Nokia's tactics have been to destroy anyone that has developed technology they need if they can. Their tactic is to not pay and let the founder of the patents have to seek revenues at a lower rate than market to stay in existance.
I say the cash position is nothing compared to what it should have been had Nokia simply signed a frandly rate prior to IDCC having to give away the technology. Lets look at the cash position of QCOM who also had stated you use one patent you pay the whole rate. If according to Nokia a single essential patent was worth 2 1/2% then the IDCC cash position would have been humongus as all of the current licensees would be paying that or more, ala QCOM. The bonuses was paid as to accomplish a license with anyone at any rate had been destroyed by the Nokia action, and IDCC was reduced to almost having to beg to get revenues to try to stay in business and do the best they could to bring a company like Nokia to their knees, and stop this action.
I think you have to pound over and over that any company who knowingly uses someones patents and is making billions off of them and want pay a fair rate is stealing, and using the system to avoid paying. It is a unfortunate thing that the curent patent laws allows this behavior and the bigger the company the bigger the thievery, as they will destroy not only IDCC but your kids and grandkids development of anything that they will need, as they want pay them either, it is steal steal and steal till they can't steal and have to be forced by a court to pay what they know they didn't invent.
I think you can not only assert but show that IDCC had offered Nokia a very FRANDLY RATE but Nokia didn't want FRANDLY they wanted to pay nothing. If a rate is offered below what the defendant says their patent is worth then certainly it has to be FRANDLY. You can't have your cake and eat it also. Nokia says what theirs is worth but yours isn't worth a penny but they sure don't mind using it to make billions.
You see Loop if IDCC can't establish real value via the court system, then its crumb city from now on. If you have something you should be able to get paid what is fair. I assure you as a attorney if you had no business and had bills to pay and a client said they would pay you crumbs but it would keep your office open and your choice was close or take the crumbs, you would have a crumb sandwich. IDCC had that very decision with every license they had to beg for, as they had no precedent setting leader sign because they was happy if you didn't even get the crumbs and folded up, and they had won and paid nothing.
JMO
Mickey
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
