Replies to post #90664 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[M6]

Geez

Even throwing the Forbes article at IDCC...out of kitchen sinks, hum?

[olddog967]

Jim: I don't know about the patents, but in the introduction they threw in everything. It sounds a little like IDCC may have been exerting some pressure on Nokia in regard to 3G. It will be interesting what our legal and technical experts have to say.

[Dishfan]

Jimlur, that Nokia filing is weak. InterDig's response will be gangbusters - and will contain all the good stuff we've been craving for years. This is InterDig's opportunity to detail in public its remarkable contributions to the 3G standards. Should be fun!

Also, there's nothing there to threaten delay in the arbitration. So we're on the original schedule, as Janet told DDweller.

Many thanks to you and your friends.

[intime]

Jimlur, The most interesting aspect is the complaint is that it focuses on only one patent in each family. There are several family members for each patent. For example, patent 5,574,747 has 6 other patents that are continuations of this original issued patent (6,721,350; 5,835,527; 5,995,538; 6,175,586; 6,330,272; 6,611,548). These continuations are not listed in the complaint despite different claims from the parent case. Some of these expand the claims and cover aspects that Nokia says are not in the '747 patent. I didn't check all the other patent families to see how many "true" 3G patents are involved.

[Desert dweller]

ok, I am ready to puke. eom.

[Desert dweller]

Throwing the Forbes article in as support for the court case? I would be willing to bet that Nokia was instrumental in writing the whole Forbes article. That article was full of inaccuracies and to cite it should show how low Nokia is willing to stoop. I am sick thinking about all the positive things that Howard had to say about Nokia and how good their working relationship was.

I hope IDCC management takes its gloves off this time because right now it sure looks like they enjoy bending over by not openly defending themselves and our investment. Trying to be on good terms with customers and potential customers is the right thing to do but when those customers sign agreements then try to renege on them, it is time to stop the nice guy routine. This filing sure makes me sick in thinking we are on our way to another long drawn out trial. I hope the arbitration panel can see through this whole charade for what it is.

Nokia signed a contract, used IDCC to create new technology for which they wont pay another nickel and now wants to say, just kidding about paying you all the other money we agreed to back in 1998. I hope the panel hears the case and rules swiftly because to me it appears that Nokia sure is stooping real low to do whatever they can to delay this.

[Ghors]

Jim: Just printed all 35 pages of the petition. It will takes hours to read carefully and report. However, in short, NOK seeks a declaration that 18 of our 3g patents are invalid and/or Nok phones do not or will not infringe on them.

They accuse us of being proud of our litigiousness and that our tactics are well known and that Forbes Magazine wrote an article regarding our tactics. They allege we represent that we have hundreds of patents that cover the wireless industry even though we lost to MOT and many of our patents were invalidated by the ERICY court in MSJ. They claim that the MOT and ERICY courts invalidated most if not all of the asserted 2G patents in those cases.

They allege their 3G license with us only covers our patents through 2006 and that they are designing and rolling out products which will be sold after 2006.

They allege that they believe we will sue NOK for patent infringement.

They in essence are alleging that we use litigation to extract money from defenseless companies and that we have used "false and misleading descriptions or representations in connection with our patent portfolio, the WCDMA standard, the CDMA 2000 standard, Nokia's product, the applicability of IDCC patents to Nok products, and the applicability of IDCC patents to 3G wireless standards". This language reminds me of the old Texas Deceptive Trade Practice pleadings.


In short, they want the 18 patents invalidated or a finding that they do not infringe them. They spend 20 pages explaining why they do not infringe on the patents.

They seek an injunction and damages for our misleading statements concerning our patent portfolio and leading the public to believe they owe us money.

IMO

Ghors

[3GDollars]

Jim,

Thanks.

Seem like the Nokia's agreement is only in force until 2006. Nokia is worried about what's happen post 2006.

Damn, why don't they be nice and beg IDCC to extend the agreement past 2006.

[Data_Rox]

does anyone know if this Jan 05 Nokia filing is still posted somewhere? maybe Bill's site?
--------

To All , One of our friendly analysts just sent the file pertaining to today's news. He said please review pages 5,6 and 7.

http://vertikalgroup.net/bfm42c2.pdf

I'm sure he as well as the rest of the IDCC shareholder community would welcome any legal views.

Thanks Jim

xxx