Replies to post #96657 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

IDCC also retained Fulbright&Jaworski to litigate against Lucent subsequent to Ericsson vs. IDCC..Do you think they were satisfied with the Firm's prior performance, or do you think that Corp Buyer has caught on to something that IDCC is unaware of ? TIA


As a prior defense attorney who gave advice to an insurance company numerous times, I can certainly see your position. My concern now is how long can this matter simmer without losing out on a cause of action based on malpractice by these high priced attorneys? Time is on their side if they can continue to delay any filing of malpractice since I assume the statute of limitations begins running from the time IDCC knew or should have know of their counsels potential negligence. In any event, I appreciate your view and can certainly agree that if they failed to protect against a BAC possibility being raised, malpractice WAS commited. Thanks for your continued posts which I believe do add to our understanding of this stock.

[lastchoice]

mschere, good question for a member since 1/18/05 and o people marks...

[Corp_Buyer]

"counsels potential negligence" - I don't know the legal requirements of timing, statute of limitation, etc., however, from a logical point of view, it seems any actual damage to IDCC's patent assets is still pending a ruling by the Court of Appeal.

If the Court of Appeal reverses the PSJ reinstatement so the PSJs are returned to vacated status, then there is perhaps no actual harm to our 2G patent assets (although the company has incurred a lot of extra legal expenses) so F&J may be off the hook (due to no damages) even if they were negligent in effecting the settlement.

Ranger:

Yes, the legal matters are surely very confusing: So far, we have my analysis, Loop's, Oso's, JK's, Ghors', Nok's, IDCC's, Judge Lynn's, and your's to name just a few perspectives articulated on this forum for the benefit of all. I would like to believe in all of the very compelling points that have been raised here by you and others.

Currently, Judge Lynn and Nok have the same and prevailing point of view. Shortly, the Court of Appeal will trump us all.

At the moment, Judge Lynn's analysis is impossible to ignore and she sees things somewhat differently than many folks here, so I struggle to understand the true facts, her logic, and the law.

I find all the information and perspectives provided on this forum invaluable to me in attempting to understand our investment. Hopefully my public struggle to understand the issues affecting our investment is helpful to some folks.

Please do not interpret my probing or arguments as bashing or being slippery. Rather, I want to look at all the facets to get to the bottom of the matters affecting my investment. I may take a position to explore it. I can, do, and reserve the right to change my opinions from time to time as pursuaded to do so.

IDCC now has a lot riding on the Nok arbitration and the Appeal. Unfortunately, a very favorable arbitration result will not cure all the potential damage to our key 2G and 3G patent assets which are now at great risk. Only a comprehensive settlement with Nok can achieve that, so that is my greatest hope, however unlikely it may be.

At this point, I want to read the briefs on appeal and have taken the initiative to obtain them. I am currently trying to figure out, as best I can, if Management and F&J, by their (mis)handling of Nok, may have critically damaged our key 2G assets and subjected our key 3G patent assets (and perhaps the company) to great peril.

All MO,
Corp_Buyer