Replies to post #310407 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[paheka]

Data..an actual ban doesn't hold anymore negotiating power than a 'potential ban"..JMHO..It's ALL about perception in the stockmarket.

As i've said before, we never lost at the ITC,it was alway's going to appeal, no matter who won that round.Look at what happened to our shareprice..that's what ultimately matters?

IF we win this round expect the opposite to happen and we continue to run up.If we lose,expect us to sell off.

[bobsil]

Have you now decided to go short?

[nicmar]

Seems not so complicated now. If all this has to be done, then I'm not certain whether it's all that important or critical whether there's an immiment NOK/IDCC settlement anyway. Same as with the perception of a NOK win at the ITC when the IDCC share price plunged, a CAFC win for IDCC will have the effect of propelling the IDCC share price upward

I'll take the CAFC win along with the surge in IDCC share price and for the next year, Nokia can stew in their brew as whether they settle or carry it on at the ITC. Seems to me at that point, it's Nokia's problem and not so much a problem to IDCC. Just need to get the CAFC decision and all's fine. .. mo.. nic

From paheka..

IDCC with a CAFC remand

Added from Data..

...sends the case back to the ITC, where intersection of new claim(s) construction is determined, validity of the patents challenged...... and if IDCC is victorious through that, then 337 can be rendered...at which time they will determine the scope of a LEO and/or C&D

[gatticaa]

Quote:
and a ban could dictate licensing terms that might be far higher than Nokia could now settle for.

pretty much a board myth in this area of FRAND,

Data, IMO there is a ton of play in FRAND. One man's "FRAND" is another man's "you're tearing my GD heart out". If it were such an exact science, settlements would be way easier.

And let's say FRAND really was just a number IDCC was offering and they called it FRAND, so in theory they must offer that number or be outside of the required FRAND. Well then i think they could change what they'd offer for prepayment discounts or change some of what they may have been forgiving on past sales. Then there's always "say hello to my little friends" rate with the new proven-up patents which would necessitate a new FRANDly rate. All IMHO of course.

[jmspaesq]

DataRox:The patents were held valid and enforceable already, right?

I don't think that would be up for redetermination upon remand.

Also you sugesst that a ban could not dictate better terms in the era of FRAND?

Why not? If what was meant that IDCC can insist upon better terms in a settlement, why not? Why can QCOM get one rate in the FRAND era but IDCC not get the same? Obviously different companies get different rates so why not IDCC?

NOK settling sooner rather than later makes sense for them especially in a win/win scenario.

Are you saying that they retain the same amount of leverage in a settlement when they lose at the CAFC?

Please try to be less cryptic in your response...

//

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
IDCC with a CAFC remand
------------------------------------------------------------------



...sends the case back to the ITC, where intersection of new claim(s) construction is determined, validity of the patents challenged...... and if IDCC is victorious through that, then 337 can be rendered...at which time they will determine the scope of a LEO and/or C&D


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------and a ban could dictate licensing terms that might be far higher than Nokia could now settle for.
------------------------------------------------------------------



pretty much a board myth in this area of FRAND,


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------
So whether they announce a settlement Friday..or not..IDCC remains a BIG threat..no pimple!!
------------------------------------------------------------------

JMO - highly doubtful there will be any settlement anytime soon. This theme seems to continue propagating on the board.....that Nokia would settle before orals, settle before "options" Friday, settle before CAFC returns, settle before the Nokia big event....so on and so on. Nokia has plenty of time to settle on appropriate patents/claims before any LEO would be ordered. IDCC wants a global convenience license.

Maybe we'll get more color at the Q4 CC?

all JMO

[magillagorilla]

DR - This (your) response is filled with many suppositions and innuendos.

It also makes a fairly convincing argument that QCOM must indeed be Nokia's indemnifier? (Since you seem to be so very convinced that there will be no settlement)

All In My Very Honest and Humble Opinion.

Magilla

[jmspaesq]

Datarox:

A couple of more follow up questions:

1. Why do you think it would be a LEO instead of a GEO?

2. Again, why does it constitute 'dicking around' for IDCC to be bidding on the Nortel patents?

...sends the case back to the ITC, where intersection of new claim(s) construction is determined, validity of the patents challenged...... and if IDCC is victorious through that, then 337 can be rendered...at which time they will determine the scope of a LEO and/or C&D