"Licensee shall have the right to substitute for this Agreement the more favorable license agreement IN ITS ENTIRETY" - may be the type of language under which Sam is claiming access to the Nok 3G license. The reference to "Covered Subscriber Units" is only to qualify if e.g. Sam is in "default" or not, in order to qualify IF they have MFL rights (which we know they did per the last arbitration with Sam).
The NEC license MFL appears to be limited to the 3G "standard" only, so accordingly, only certain "portions", and not the "entire agreement", shall be superceded by the more favorable terms.
In the case of Sam, apparently they previously won the "entire agreement" of Nok pursuant to Sam's MFL. Sam seems to be in the novation and substitution category. In this case, there may be no limitation on Sam to the "Covered Standard" as in the case of NEC.
Now, it seems Sam is claiming all the benefits under the Nok "agreement" including access to IDCC's 3G patents. I am not saying Sam is right. I am just trying to understand the upcoming Sam-IDCC dispute and arbitration from a logical standpoint. And at this point, it seems the Sam-IDCC dispute over 3G will indeed go to arbitration, no matter what happens with Nok, and so far my inference is that Sam may logically have some basis for their claim.
Of course, I would prefer a separate, independent, 3G license requirement and rate from Sam that is not in any way tied to the Nok license rate and trigger.
Perhaps if IDCC achieves a comprehensive 2G and 3G settlement with Nok, then IDCC may be happy to concede this issue to Sam, but until then, I am happy for IDCC to dispute the 3G linkage issue.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
