Replies to post #101647 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[arthritis65]

We will know the arbitration results shortly. Of course, if there is a 2G/3G settlement then it may obscure a horrible mistake by our management.so idcc mgmt cant win no matter what the outcome is?????your contention..idcc mgmt will loose regardless what happens...unbelievable...

[mschere]

Can I assume that your inability to cite one instance where IDCC caused you "pain" regarding YOUR MISTAKE in stating that they CLAIMED more than they received from the Ericsson settlement? TIA and still waiting..


We will know the arbitration results shortly. Of course, if there is a 2G/3G settlement then it may obscure a horrible mistake by our management.

Posted by: mschere
In reply to: Corp_Buyer who wrote msg# 101592 Date:4/12/2005 12:25:05 PM
Post #of 101612

Kindly post one IDCC sourced reference to an actual DOLLAR amount sought by the Company in its litigation against Ericsson? TIA

"Besides Moto, what are the other failed litigation efforts?" - surely you are joking, right? I still feel the pain of:

* Samsung - lost the MFL issue
* Nec - pennies on the dollar claimed
* Ericy - pennies on the dollar claimed

[3GDollars]

I remembered talking to IR about the rate for the year 2002, he kind of stumbled a little. After I repeat my question, he just said that we should be OK. That was a day after the E/SNE announcement.

In the subseqauent 8K, it was spelled out clearly E/SNE payment for sales prior to 2001, and for year 2002.

At the very least, IDCC management did mess up this announcement. In their initial release, it stated the past due payment covered sales to year 2002; did not specify the breakup of the amount to year 2001 and for the year 2002.

I fault management for this screw up; definitely not a professional job.

[JimLur]

Corp, Everyone here knows how you feel about management and probably there's some that agree with you in certain areas. In this copy of your post you took several swings at management which happens quite often in your posts. This in turn draws a crowd and a bunch of pizzing matches. You say you don't have an agenda so if you don't just forget the constant insults about management. It's a long way until the annual meeting and I for one don't want to put up with pizzing matches every day. I would appreciate your help.

HOWEVER, the room to negotiate IMO stems not from a different RATE, but from the START DATE of the "phase 2" royalty period.

From the initial PR announcement of the E/SE settlement and licenses, Loop and others here expressed SERIOUS reservations about the differing "phase 2" rate start dates for Nok (2002) versus E/SE (2003).

If as you suggest, Nok does have an MFL (most likely), then maybe Nok reasonably requested some relief for 2002, contrary to our management heels being dug in by the E/SE/Nok/Sam joint PR announcement.

As if the joint PR from our management was not foolish enough, our top leadership then indulged themselves with significant personal insider stock sales DURING the Nok negotiation which only served to cement IDCC's (perhaps unreasonable) position as to the start date. IMO, the initial PR and personal stock sales both worked to the company's serious detrimentsince then any significant compromise, no matter how reasonable, became a personal impossibility for our seemingly inept management.

If our initial claim is compromised by the arbitration in any way, I expect it will be mainly due to the start date discrepency going against IDCC due to Nok's MFL.

IDCC's claim for 2002 was an OBVIOUS and EASY area of compromise 2 years ago without compromising on the royalty rate going forward. Unfortunately, our management may have cemented themselves personally into an unreasonable position thereby leading to this arbitration.

We will know the arbitration results shortly. Of course, if there is a 2G/3G settlement then it may obscure a horrible mistake by our management.

[olddog967]

Corp-Buyer: I am confused about your statements regarding possible problems with the phase 2 starting date. The conference call at the time of the Ericsson settlement mentioned that they expect to receive approximately $34 million related to sales of terminal and infrastructure products through December 31, 2002, and then payments for the subsequent period. However when you look at the license terms, they are very explicit in breaking down the prior period payment amount into payments for the periods on and before December 31, 2002 and for calender year 2002.

Ericsson (infrastructure):

a. On or before 31 Dec 2001
(1) Lump sum non refundable payment ($ amount redacted)


b. CY 2002:
(1) Lump sum non refundable payment ($ amount redacted)


Sony/Ericsson (mobile phones)

a. On or before 31 Dec 2001:
(1) Lump sum non refundable payment ($ amount redacted)

b. CY 2002
(1) Calculated - based on units sold x specific royalty rates (rates redacted)

In addition to the cash payments, the Ericsson license assigns a value (amount redacted) for the EMP option.


I am sure this breakdown was done with the Nokia license terms in mind. Since we believe that the licenses triggered Nokia’s obligations, one of Nokia’s main concerns was to ensure that the payment terms in the licenses were not structured in such a manner as to possibly favor Ericsson/Sony-Ericsson to their disadvantage.

You are constantly berating IDCCs management for not working out a settlement with Nokia. However, as Nokia’s intention was apparently not to pay anything to IDCC, it is quite probable that Nokia’s settlement terms at the time of the Ericsson settlement were not worth the paper they were written on. Although that might have been then, now that Nokia has seen how the arbitration has been going, they may be more amiable to a reasonable setlement that would be considerd a win-win for both parties.

[Corp_Buyer]

JimL, OD, DD, Art, All- "swings at management" - I would like to take some time to review your points on management, the Nok dispute, and my "swings at management".

I want to take a fresh look, reconsider my thoughts, and then respond to you.

Regards,
Corp_Buyer