The Count
I will do my best to respond but it will be in the form of a question. If what you said about Kyocera waiting for a Nokia ruling, would you say they was then gambling on paying a higher rate if Nokia got clocked? Next since Kyocera doesn't have anywhere near the patents that Nokia has, do you think Kyocera has work arounds of the IDCC technology? Finally why would if this practice as you advocated was the route to take, why did a company after the ITC decision chip in 77 million and another Pantech license for 105 million? If your method is considered the route to pursue why did these 2 companies abandon this lucrative route and pony up the money?
Let me ask you one more thing since the ITC decision if you was a licensee based on your waiting for a Nokia ruling would you ever pay IDCC anything? Yet we know the revenues are growing not declining.
It seems to me and as usual I might be wrong but it seems to me that the Nokia ruling hasn't been the reason for Kyocera not renewing, nor was it the reason current licensees haven't stopped paying. I think the Nokia ruling will only apply to Nokia and possibly some side agreement that IDCC may have entered into with Motorola, and Sony Ericsson, and Ericsson, and of this it is just pure speculation. I hope I am 100% wrong on this and that IDCC will get a license from one if not all of these before a final Nokia agreement. It however appears IDCC has some reason for not pursing these companies while pursuing Nokia.
Let me ask you this, since Merritt stated the longer the Nokia not settling the more it would cost them or the higher the rate or something to said effect. Would this same principal not also apply to Kyocera, so where is the benefit to Kyocera to delay especially if Merritt is right?
One would think it would be better to have a amicable settlement if they was Kyocera rather than have someone else fight over patents that you probably can't circumvent and then you have to fight IDCC and maybe they get a ban on your products through the ITC?
Also using your analogy since it is almost common practice for legal action to continually be a thing with patent companies, then no one would ever license. This would kind of be like what you said about the convience license and no one would ever license if we waited on new patents and new products, which was not what I actually stated but was trying to say since the original license agreement that Kyocera now is making quite a few new products that may require a license, and since they are not considered cell phone products I would assume they would require a different rate than a cell phone rate and different langauage. This was a opinion not a fact.
It is your right to express what you think. I however think that Kyocera will renew and it will be a fair and reasonable rate. One would think that after Pantech licensed and if ever a company would not wont to pay right now it would appear that Pantech would certainly wont to delay paying. Yet even after the ITC decision they settled, which certainly says to me that chances are greater for a renewal from Kyocera. If you use the argument of the Nokia no infringement, then why would Pantech not use the same argument, and the same with the annoymous company that paid the 77 million. Did these 2 companies not have the same reason as the rest of the present licensed and the unlicensed have? Explain to all of us why they licensed and renewed or prepaid? Do you think that remotely they know that they as well as all others including Nokia will pay and they have a good deal and are happy to sign now rather than maybe have to pay more later?
JMO
Mickey
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
