JK- since Bancorp is a 10 year old Supreme court precedent and there are so MANY progeny, an expensive and leading law firm as F&J should have been all over this issue and they should have been effecting settlements for many years with any desired court actions as integrated into the settlement, rather than effecting settlements REGARDLESS of the court's actions as was done in the IDCC/E settlement and vacatur.
This was a needless legal risk to take, given the information that was available to F&J for many years. Surely, F&J won't make this mistake again for their other clients. We don't need F&J to get educated by risking our most valuable key assets, since we are paying them to avoid such risks for US.
This is why I am so LIVID about this monumental and perhaps NEGLIGENT mistake, involving IDCC's most valuable (to date) company jewel assets.
And this is not the only apparent legal mistake that has come to light. Another example seems to be the statement to the court (in seeking the vacatur of the PSJs) that there were no third parties interested in the settlement and vacatur. Nok and and court seem to agree that this statement by IDCC was "incorrect" or misleading at least.
IDCC could have much better stated the potential for our other licensees (e.g. Nok) to exercise their MFL under existing licenses to VOLUNTARILY adopt for themselves the favorable rates established in the E/SE licenses. How much more accurate and beneficial would such a statement have been for us?
Anyway, these are just 2 examples of the needless extreme risks our management and legal counsel have exposed us to, and I have posted many other examples as well (insider sales during the Nok negotiation, combined E/SE/Nok/Sam PR, etc.).
My main point is that many of these EXTREME risks to our most valuable assets are the direct result of NEEDLESS, FOOLISH, REPEATED, perhaps NEGLIGENT, mistakes by our management and their hired guns (legal counsel).
Many here seem to think it is OK and quite acceptable for our management and legal counsel to repeatedly shoot the company in the foot (or maybe head) since the Nok arbitration result (which is still unknown) will make it all better.
IMO, IDCC and shareholders, should not be in this perilous position in the first place (Nok arbitration, reinstatement, appeal, UK 2G patent challenge, US 3G patent challenge, etc.) if only IDCC and Nok had settled and not gone to arbitration.
Management certainly indicated a settlement with Nok was a possibility since as I recall management (HG) guided us that Nok was "tirmming around the edges" in characterizing the pre-arbitration negotiation between IDCC and Nok.
So, it seems to me that IDCC's inflexibility in getting the last nickle off the table was exceedingly poor business judgment, and management has blindly and needlessly put our company and our most valuable 2G and 3G assets in great peril. And IMO, our management should be held accountable for these mistakes and needless risks whatever the outcome of the Nok arbitration.
How do you see these issues?
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
