Replies to post #107928 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[laranger]

I have to chuckle when the ICC says the Committee can't approve an award of "particular interest".

Particular interest to whom?

Nokia.

Samsung.

LG Electonics.

Forbes Magazine.

The rest of the wireless world, but especially those who have refused to license because of the arbitration.

A few thousand boyz and girls on Wall Street, including MM's, Shorts, Hedge Funds, Naked Shorts, River Boat Gamblers, option holders, etc.

And finally. . . . . . . . . . A few hundred nervous wives, who wonder whether their husbands know what they're doing, and ask daily, "Anything new with IDCC?".

[grither]

Is there a chance of a pre-arranged "settlement" AFTER the arbitration. Such as:
If settlement is 300 mill then Nokia pays x for 3G
If settlement is 200 mill then Nokia pays x+y for 3G
If settlement is 100 mill then Nokia pays x+y+z for 3G
If settlement is 0 mill then Nokia pays x+y+z+a for 3G.
Both parties could have worked this out prior to an arbitration decision.
Why?
It would provide an insurance to both parties that limits risk in case one party loses the arbritation. Lose the arbitration- win 3G. Win arbitration - less for 3G.
This way the parties wait out the arbitration award and they know their risk no matter what the award is.

[IDoCare]

"I believe IDCC will let this go to a decision by the arbitration panel."

IMO, if we don't get an arb decision by Monday's opening, then it is more than likely that both parties are serious about negotiating a settlement. Why? Because if NOK was not sincere in their settlement negotiations, then IDCC would ask the arb board to release the award decision. It is very important for IDCC to get this done, one way or the other, before the ASM.

[warbil]

amr, I agree with your thinking. There will be no settlement by IDCC before May 31 unless Nokia sunstantially agrees with the terms requested by IDCC. There is absolutely no point to settling with Nokia for less at this stage of the game. IDCC should wait for a favorable arbitration award and then use it as a tool to get a decent 3G royalty rate. Even with a decent 3G royalty rate, I still think IDCC should hold out for at least $.50 on the dollar for past 2G royalties. If no 3G rate, IDCC should demand the full award with intetest and wait to trigger Nokia's 3G rate using ERICY, Lucent or Samsung.

I'm glad IDCC is holding to their position. I doubt Nokia expected this because it is not IDCC's normal method of operation. IDCC will get some respect in the legal circles for finally standing up for themselves. I think they will gain some additional respect from their firm stance with Lucent as well.

At some point, these OEM's are going to learn that unless they offer IDCC a fair settlement, IDCC will go the distance and the OEM's will risk losing a large award plus attorney fees.

Attorneys do not like to lose and will encourage settlements to reduce this risk. At this point, I can only think that Nokia is still gambling for a favorable arbitration ruling. If they lose, they will offer to settle with IDCC or threaten to go the appeals route with further delays. They will use their market size to bully IDCC for everything they can get. IDCC, on the other hand, should use Nokia to set an example for the other OEMs. I have more faith in IDCC's attorneys (F&J) than Nokia's attorneys. I think Nokia's attorneys have presented the best case that they could, but have had limited legal positions to fight. F&J knows this and I'm sure is recommending that IDCC hold their ground. Attorneys love to "win".

I know the market does not like uncertainty, but I truly believe IDCC will recover from this stronger than ever for staying the course. So please IDCC, don't sell out your principles and stay the course.

Bill