Replies to post #108181 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

Desert_dweller: In regard to IDCC's agreements with Nokia, while there were three agreements, there was only ONE license agreement. Nothing seems to be known about what is in the Master Agreement.

From Amendment 1 to the TDD Development Agreement


"Background: Nokia and IDC entered into a Master Agreement, Patent License Agreement, and a TDD Development Agreement, each effective as of January 29, 1999."



As far as your assumption in one of your previous posts that there is only ONE contract covering 2g & 3g, I believe it is an incorrect assumption. I believe someone previously posted that there are 3 contracts, one for 2g, one for 3g and one for the TDD development work.

[Corp_Buyer]

"The thing that is so desirable is the fact that until a trigger is licensed, they don't have to pay" - a good point, but Sam could just go naked with LITTLE fear of suit just as e.g. LG, and many others, right?

So, while Nok's 3G license prevents litigation from IDCC, how valuable is that assurance, really? Perhaps there are some other key terms that make Nok's 3G license so valuable to Nok and Sam? Maybe the trigger, or maybe something else?

"someone previously posted that there are 3 contracts, one for 2g, one for 3g and one for the TDD development work" - this would make a lot of sense but I am not aware of separate contracts. Can you provide the link to this information re: one contract versus separate?

"you think our legal team is inept" - More specifically, while I am very impressed by F&J's Appeal briefs and their Motion to Dismiss Nok's 3G patent litigation, I believe F&J and IDCC negligently BUNGLED the Ericy settlement by not very easily and clearly insulating it from the principles in Bancorp, which Nok and Judge Lynn used to reinstate the VERY ADVERSE PSJs against many of our MOST VALUABLE 2G patent claims (much to the surprise of IDCC and F&J, apparently).

Other law firms were pulically and privately WARNING their attorneys and clients to just the type of ruling we suffered:

http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=5739601

So, in this particular issue, F&J provided very poor advice, to say the least. The Nok intervention, PSJ reinstatement, and 3G patent challenge issues also speak VERY LOUDLY to how our top management, specifically HG and HC, utterly FAILED to properly assess the EXTREME RISKS of mishandling NOK over 2 years ago.

HC MUST GO. Vote WITHHOLD on HC.

MO,
Corp_Buyer