ricky, apologize for leaving out the part about Nokia signing a set of license agreements with InterDigital back in 1999. One of those was a license for Nokia's 2G IPR usage after Jan 1, 2002(remember, this agreement was put in place in 1999 so Jan of 2002 seemed reasonable at the time). In addition, Nokia sweetened the deal by paying InterDigital $31 million for 2G IPR usage prior to that date, AND Nokia commited to pay InterDigital another bundle of money to underwrite the development of a WTDD cohort for W-CDMA "FDD". Things sure looked rosy between Nokia and IDCC in those days.
Anywho, getting back to that 2G license contract it's important to know that Nokia and InterDigital defined a "framework" within that license to be used in setting the rates that Nokia would pay from Jan 1, 2002 forward. We have also been told that the rate setting framework in Nokia's 2G license contract included several different options with the default being the rates agreed by any one of several "named manufacturers or their legal successors". Game over when one of those "named manufacturers" licensed with InterDigital for 2G, and Ericsson was one of those "named manufacturers". InterDigital believes that SONY/Ericsson qualifies under the "and legal successors" language.
Nokia is bound by what Ericsson and SONY/Ericsson agreed to pay because they signed a contract that says so. That's my story and I'm sticking to it until the ICC arb panel rules otherwise.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
