Replies to post #308174 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[longinvestor_98]

Even if there is new information--why would the odds change? the odds are that 67% or better don't get the ruling change--don't you think NOK factors that in?

I believe olddog or a friend here has posted some statistics about these appealing cases. And it goes something like this:

- 10-20% settled before oral hearing.
- 35% has the rule totally reversed or partially reversed
- 50% confirmed.

So the chance of reversion of the rule at CAFC is: 35/50+35= 42%

When looking at statistic we have to keep in mind that 42% is a significant p value, and the reversion rate is significant, worthy pursuing if you have a case. DO IT if you have a strong case, no matter what the other side tries to do to you (luring you to a low-ball offer).

If the reversion rate were, hypothetically, 0.01%. That is not a significant p value. Odd is significantly against you. Do it if you feel that you have a strong case. If you win the odd is 100% in your favor. And if you lose you become another number in the statistic.

Having said that, I believe we are going to see the decision. And NOK will continue throwing another road-block. When the ban is imminent then they will sign. Think about it: IDCC may ask for 1% before ITC. They asked for 1% after ITC. 1% before oral argument at CAFC. And possibly 1% after the ruling from CAFC if favorable (while NOK appealing the decision....). NOK knows the game and will continue doing what they have done that all along!!!

LI

[badgerkid]

Janicen, once the oral arguments concluded, a new perspective on what the judges may decide became available. It doesn't matter what the historical "odds" are from past cases because those cases have no direct bearing on this current case. Those "odds" should not be used as predictive for any specific case.

If we were rolling dice, odds would be very useful such as in playing craps, they're perfectly predictive for every roll. The same cannot be said for court cases.

Now, if you could account for every variable in this case, you could then compare that to other cases that are identical and gain an insight. Beyond that, I don't know how to use the historical numbers to predict any single case.

Just for fun, this is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

IMO

[vtem01]

janicen 98,


It might not work very well for pNokia to ask others to pay royalty while fight to pay IDCC what is due.