frobinso: Apple's motion to stay the MMI case is based on the particular terms of the MMI-Google merger agreement. The judge hasn't yet ruled on the motion.
IDCC's case was filed by IDCC's subsidiary companies, in whose names the patents have been assigned to. For any buyer who wanted to continue the current cases, they would have to let IDCC's subsidiary companies keep their corporate identity, and become subsidiary companies of the buyout company. JMHO.
Quote:
________
No, I am saying that Apple tried to claim the MMI case should be stayed because MMI, now being the subject of an acquistion, no longer has the same legal standing.
If Apple buys IDCC, the shoe is on the other foot, and all the defendents to the IDCC case could have made those same arguments.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
