Malko
You are making me nervous. I believe IDCC is far better off with arbiters that deliver a more narrow interpretation of the written agreements. While Toshiba may help with 3g matters, I, like Harry, want some return on my 20 year investment in 2g. IDCC has a lot of baggage in 2g and I do not want some "logical" decision maker going outside the contracts to find lesser amounts under some fairness doctrine. Mot skated and Ericy is off the hook for right at 100 mil for 2g through 2006. Siemens has also skated 2g for around 20 mil. Further, IDCC has been unable to obtain a 2g infringement finding on its own soil during the course of 12 years of serious litigation. Even worse, IDCC had its revalidated patent claims poured out by a federal judge with respect to infringement claims. I do not want a "fairness" driven panel armed with these glaring facts when they decide what logical amount Nok should pay for 2g. I would feel much more comfortable with a panel that sticks to the agreement of the parties rather one that considers the accomplishments and failures of IDCC with others.
MO
loop
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
