AMR, really like your use of the word "logical" in the ref post about how the ICC Arbitration process works. IMO a lot of us have a frame of reference defined by what we have come to understand about the legal process as practiced in the U.S. court system, i.e., minor technicalities can determine the outcome regardless of what might seem fair and reasonable.
Hoping that the ICC Arbitration process is different. It's set up by businesses to serve businesses and to produce "logical" decisions that are based on a subjective analysis of ALL facts in evidence, not just the minor technicalities. Based on my limited understanding the arb panel works along the following lines; Read the contract in dispute. Form a logical opinion of the intent when the contract was agreed. What were the values to be obtained by each party in exchange for what performance by the other, and have those terms been met? What were the expectations of each party in return for performing what they agreed to perform? Have those expectations been met?
Did InterDigital deliver what it was expected to deliver when the contract was signed? Has Nokia enjoyed value as a result of that performance? What are the relevant foundations of Law in evaluating the situation? What results seem "logical" given the original intent of the contractual agreement? What do we need to do to make the outcomes fit that conclusion?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
