Ranger
The major competitor argument is pure nonsense. Under contractual interpretation cases, the specific always outweighs the general language. The identification of Ericy, its successors and assigns was SPECIFIC with regard to triggering companies. SNE further qualifies because it is the successor of 100% of the Ericy handset division in a joint venture in which Ericy controls 50% or better in interest.
This contract involved a contingent event which by its very definition anticipates mutations and industry shifts. The parties were fully cognizant that much can and does happen over a 3 year period. Yet, they were mutually confident enough to name Ericy as a company that could bind and trigger a rate setting process for additional royalties. I just do not see any wiggle room on the issue under the specific over general application for interpretation.
MO
loop
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
