Replies to post #95396 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

BTW, I infer that Nok's tightening the screws i.e. UK 2G patent litigation, US 3G patent litigation in sequence combined with Nok's profer that they have offered a settlement to IDCC, combined with the rumor that Nok and IDCC were close to a deal back in 1H03, all indicate to me that Nok wants to settle, and it is our management that may be intransigent.

If our managment is being especially extreme and uncompromising, then I hold our management accountable for thwir lack of business sense and the appearance of a pump and dump created by management's handling of the S/E/Nok joint PR announcement followed by management's actions to enjoy indiser stock sales at that critical time, which may have actually handcuffed our leadership from reaching any reasonable business settlement.

If IDCC could make such a compromise settlement with E/SE, then why could IDCC not make such a business compromise with Nok?

IMO, our management had no vision or comprehension of the downside, delay, unintended consequences, etc. of not reaching a business compromise with Nok back in 2003, and for this our leadership should be replaced, whatever the final outcome of the NOK arbitration.

This lack of vision and bias for litigation is apparent considering our COB took another case (albeit a much less complex case) to the Supreme Court and our CEO is an attorney. Our top management failed to realize that our court system is imperfect, so being right is not always enough to prevail.

IMO, we should not be in this arbitration mess, we should not have the UK patent challenge, and we should not have the 3G patent challenge.

IDCC should have reached a good business compromise with Nok back in 1H2003, or even later, but it appears that our top management, due to their poor business judgment and regrettable insider sales, have now locked us in this very dangerous legal situation and for this they should be replacd, whatever the ultimate outcome of this arbitration.

All MO,
Corp_Buyer

[JimLur]

To All , Here's the pacer 782 file that Corp_Buyer sent me. Sorry I'm late posting it but I been running around to the doctors all day geting check ups.

http://vertikalgroup.net/pacer-782.pdf


xxx

[sinnet14]

Corp_buyer, while I did agree with you about the over-compensation of IDCC management during past years, I think your following concerns are overstated:

Nok cited this clause to the Court and Nok thinks it is important to them. This seems to be the key clause that Nok is using to base their arguments about patent strength, Nok's lack of use of IDCC's technology, IDCC/E collusion to structure their settlement in the form of sham licenses, etc..

from the following:
Nokia originally made claims in the Nokia arbitration requesting that the arbitration panel make specific findings of invalidity and/or non-infringement of ITC patents (some of which were involved in the Ericsson litigation). Nokia subsequently withdrew such claims.

we know that Nokia is not challenging patent invalidity and non-infringement. Therefore, the "all relevant factors" should not be about patent strength(invalidity) lack of use of IDCC's technology(non-infringement).