Replies to post #108168 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

"what would stop licensees from constantly invoking an MFL clause for portions of contracts without taking the entire contract into consideration?" - you may have hit on the final answer and Samsung's claim i.e. since MFLs are PROspective, they had to either adopt or reject Nok's entire contract, and since the Nok 2/3G license is all apparently contained in ONE contract, then Samsung seems to be claiming that under the MFL they HAD to accept or reject ALL the terms of the Nok contract, including Nok's 3G terms. It seems to me that Samsung might prevail on this point.

While I am glad IDCC is arguing for a separate higher, non-MFL, 3G rate for Samsung, it seems to me that when Samsung exercised their 2G MFL, Samsung may have actually upgraded to a 3G license since they necessarily accepted all the terms of the Nok contract.

IDCC apparently argues that Samsung's MFL is limited to 2G by virtue of Samsung's original license for 2G only. This is a very interesting legal point, but as I understand MFLs, Samsung either had to accept or reject ALL the terms of the Nok contract, and since the integrated Nok contact included 3G terms, it seems there is some reason to think Samsung may be entitled to Nok's 3G terms as well?

MO,
Corp_Buyer

[loophole73]

dd

One must have the technology under license to invoke a MFL clause regarding financial disadvantage over rates for said technology given to a competitor (kind of like FIFO in your area). This is why I am not concerned if IDCC gives Nok a good 3g rate because our existing licensees did not have 3g technology under license at the time Nok licensed same. This is another plus because if Nok carries out its threatened non renewal of 3g in the Delaware action, they can lose their MFL rights with respect to all who have licensed prior to entering into a license sometime after 12/31/2006 should IDCC prevail in the litigation. The triggers would have expired and disappeared with the old PLA and they have to negotiate straight up regarding a rate. Nok may be big and bad, but they have some tough decisions to make.

MO
loop

[Corp_Buyer]

"not surprised that they are trying to get the same 3g contract" - yes it is VERY interesting that Samsung dearly WANTS Nok's 3G license terms. Also, very interesting is that despite Nok's legal attack on our 3G IPR in court, that NOK itself has not (yet) repudiated their 3G (and 2G) license altogether.

Maybe Nok doesn't need to, since NOK apparently is free to challenge our 3G (and 2G) patents in court anyway (for the period after the license expires) provided of course the court will hear it, which is still TBD.

So what is it about Nok's 3G license that makes it so DESIRABLE to Nok AND to Sam?

IMO, it is the 3G MFL contained therein. Nobody, and certainly not Nok nor Sam want to be the odd customer out without an MFL from IDCC for 3G.

So, we have Nok hanging onto, and Sam striving to get, this key term in the Nok 3G license.

Whatever the key term is in the Nok 3G license that is so important to both Nok and Sam, I hope it will drive Nok to settle now with IDCC including 3G.

MO,
Corp_Buyer