Replies to post #96549 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[loophole73]

Ranger

The Judge vacated the vacating order because she believed that she was wrong in her interpretation of the law at the time she signed the first vacating order. IDCC and Ericy believe she is wrong in her interpretation. It will be up to the Circuit Court to determine whether she is right or wrong. The court will review the documents in the case and counsel will also present a background, overview with respect to the statement of their case. This case will be interesting because it will pit the settlement at all costs to clear the docket camp against the let the parties have their day in court camp. Clearly, affirming the actions of Judge Lynn will encourage the Monday morning quarterback potential defendants to lay in the cut, reinstate vacated interlocutory orders and attempt to use same for their benefit in another matter down the road. I still have a hard time with the intervention after both parties have withdrawn their claims against each other and the case does not exist. I do not believe that this is the intent of the law, but then again intent seems to change with the wind these days. Ole stupid loop did not believe that Nok had the power to prosecute or intervene in a patent validity action outside of the IDCC license either until he discovered it in a UK action and 3g action by Nok. You cannot assume anything when dealing with the survival documents signed by IDCC. Hopefully, the Tribunal will end the survival game once and for all and IDCC can demand the consistency that Qcom enjoys when dealing with its licensees.

MO
loop

[Learning2vest]

ranger, could be that I'm picking at a nit here but gonna do it anyway. Cannot let it be said that "IDCC lied about the effect of PSJ's on a third party" without taking exception.

I think IDCC spoke the TRUTH when they said vacating the PSJ's would have no effect on Nokia. In fact, I think that it's STILL TRUE TODAY!

Why was it true then and still true today?.... Because the ICC arb panel is going to determine Nokia's 2G rates regardless of what happens with Nokia's efforts to have those PSJ's reinstated. The arb panel is going to determine Nokia's 2G rates based on the terms of the contract they signed back in 1999, NOT based on the claims remaining and judged to be infringed after the PSJ's.

Nokia's 2G rate with InterDigital stopped being about patent validity and infringement the moment SONY/Ericsson settled and agreed to 2G rates. When that happened Nokia's contract provisions allowing them to have their 2G rates based on anything other than the rates agreed by one of the "named manufacturers" in that 1999 license agreement were null and void, gone, kaput.

Nokia bet that Ericsson would prevail in their litigation vs InterDigital, and Nokia lost that bet. They can churn in the courts all they want, IMHO it's too late to expect a "do over".