Replies to post #124822 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[pochemunyet]

Just because the petition is to vacate or modify doesn't mean the judge has the authority. The petition only expresses what NOK dreams might happen. jmho

[laranger]

The judge is not there to second-guess the decision of the arbitrators, absent midconduct, fraud, bias, etc.

Nokia may owe about $320 million, including "punitive" amounts of about $20 million in lost discount for Period #1, and about $20 million in "additional interest".

Giving back about $40 million to Nokia would still leave about $280 million owed to IDCC, which can hardly be called a "win" for Nokia.

If the judge confirms, or modifies by $40 million, you won't find many shareholders who believe Nokia will finally give up and settle.

[Learning2vest]

Had a thought worth mentioning while reading your predictions of seeing relatively minor "adjustments" in the 2G final award rulings before reaching a settlement with Nokia. Maybe the principals at IDCC and Nokia are thinking along the same lines that you are.

Nokia has a history of fighting hard right up to the moment they settle, and what is to say they will not do that in this situation? Nokia has a bigger fish to fry in the coming months(i.e., the QCOM contract update), and that big fish has to be watching what is going on here IMO.

Why would QCOM even consider negotiating with somebody who only does what the courts force them to do? Just load up the heavy legal ammo and start shooting at Nokia because they do not have respect for anything else. Let an American jury decide what Nokia needs to pay for using QCOM's patented inventions, and tell that jury the whole sordid IDCC story before letting them set those rates.

What I'm saying is that there are some trade-offs for Nokia to consider as they continue to pursue ever smaller "victories" in their scorched earth "negotiation" process vs IDCC. Not only for 2G, but for 3G as well. Somebody at Nokia has to be asking themselves "Save how much, at what cost in other affairs, by continuing to fight IDCC?".

The world is watching, and will not soon forget Nokia's behavior toward IDCC. Seeing mighty Nokia file EIGHT legal initiatives, demonstrate complete disrespect of an ICC arbitration ruling, and continue punishing the stake holders at a tiny firm like IDCC could have consequences in matters beyond what ends up happening in their IDCC relationship. That line of thinking has me ready to add a Nokia settlement to my list of "possibilities".

[Corp_Buyer]

"the judge will modify the award based on count # 6 and on NY law" - The body of case law is quite clear that an arbitration award does NOT have to follow NY law, or any law that is referenced in the contract, or any law at all, so long as the issue was submitted by the parties for private arbitration.

Nok and IDCC submitted "all disputes" to arbitration. And, the SE trigger issue was certainly a submitted dispute.

The body of case law is quite consistent and clear that the act of submitting an issue to arbitration TRUMPS any requirement that the award follow any law. Everyone recognizes (the parties and the courts) that the choice to submit to arbitration is a CHOICE NOT to submit the issue to a court. Private arbitration is not court. Courts must follow all applicable laws, but an arbitration does not. And, submitting the issue to arbitration was the choice of the parties.

The surprise for me in Nok's motion to vacate is how weak it is, arguing entirely about how unfair the award is and that is does not follow NY law. There were no accusations of malfeasance by the tribunal e.g. improper procedures, ex parte communications, etc.. It seems as if Nok's lawyers really do not have much experience opposing arbitration awards by attacking the award and not the arbitration process. The grounds for vacation that are permitted by the courts all have to do with fairness of the process, not fairness of the award.

The ICC tribunal was fully empowered by the parties to decide the SE trigger issue, past due amounts, interest, and prepayment discounts.

To my reading, the Court MUST and WILL confirm IDCC's award in its entirety; otherwise, IDCC will rightfully appeal any significant "modifications".

MO,
Corp_Buyer