Replies to post #97423 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

Question.Does anyone know which IDCC Patents were licensed to Qualcomm? TIA

[laranger]

Interesting thought, L2.

I've always been curious about the elusive indemnifier.

If your theory eventually holds water, could this also explain the delay in NOK's 20f filing, and the numbers contained therein?

[Dave Davis]

Learning: I like the way you think.

Right now, I think InterDigital is like Mt. St. Helens.

[hookrider]

Learning2vest:"it's possible that QCOM failed to completely and explicitly extinguish all of the "indemnification" provisions in Nokia's license for earlier versions of 2G CDMA when that license was "upgraded" to cover later versions of 2G and 3G CDMA."

If true the BOD & management at QCOM heeds to go. I do own QCOM. Not only that but lets find out who there lawyers are. They need to get laugh at as much as Corp laughs at F & J

O yes it's IMO.

[rmarchma]

L2vest re Qualcomm and Nokia indemnification theory

Interesting theory and you might possibly be on to something. You said:

..."Reaching a bit further out on that limb... it's possible that QCOM failed to completely and explicitly extinguish all of the "indemnification" provisions in Nokia's license for earlier versions of 2G CDMA when that license was "upgraded" to cover later versions of 2G and 3G CDMA."

When I fist read that, I got the impression that you thought this was an oversight on Q's part not to eliminate the indemnification clause on updated contracts. I seriously doubt that Q would make an error/oversight such as that, but you really didn't say that. If you theory has any merit, I suppose Q could have thought that they could provide virtually everything for CDMA2000 also, and could continue the indemnification against IDCC's narrowband CDMA IPR. However when Sanyo and Toshiba licensed with IDCC and paid royalties for CDMA2000, Q might have gotten a little nervous about its possible indemnification clause.

You also said:

..."IMO it's not much of a reach to speculate that Nokia wants QCOM to step up with them in negotiating "narrowband" CDMA payment obligations with InterDigital.(If, in fact, QCOM was actually offering such a thing as "indemnification"

I have heard some rumors to that effect. One rumor that I have heard in this regard has Qualcomm encouraging Nokia to sign a royalty rate agreement with IDCC for CDMA2000. Then Q would knock something off Nokia's CDMA2000 royalty rate with them to help accommodate Nokia to avoid the possible indemnification issue. BTW Nokia is licensed with IDCC for CDMA2000, they have just not agreed to a royalty rate with IDCC for this standard. I first heard this rumor about three months ago, and it seemed a little far-fetched to me when I first heard it. However if this rumor does have any truth to it, then it would tend to give some support to your theory.

Finally you theorize:

..."If that is the case(??), then maybe there are also some conditions specified in that old QCOM indemnification clause requiring Nokia to "engage and defend" any claims made against it before OCOM's liability becomes effective"

If all the other speculation and theories have any truth, then this could be a logical requirement also. It could be Nokia's attempt at trying to force everyone's hand to gain some type of rate concessions from IDCC, from Q, or from both.