Replies to post #124855 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[laranger]

Corp. Agree.

Nokia keeps trumpeting their one (biased) dissenter, versus a total of 16 votes that were cast by all ICC participants.

IDCC should, but will probably not trumpet the majority decision of not only the three member panel, but the 7-lawyer legal team in Paris assigned to each case by the ICC, as well as the six member court.

By my count, that's at least 10 to 1 against Nokia, even if only a simple majority of ICC reviewers agreed with the award.

[badgerkid]

Corp - you said "It seems as if Nok's lawyers really do not have much experience opposing arbitration awards"

Do you believe this or might Nokia have reasons beyond just this case?

I agree with the points you made in your post, and I'm also confident in Interdigital prevailing and ultimately getting paid. But I still hold that Interdigital is merely being used as a public battle by Nokia in its stated goals of maintaning low licensing rates.

Going forward, there is substantially more money in play with all future licensing fees in 3G and beyond that could result if they capitulate too quickly (or so Nokia may believe). Though I think Nokia is a dirty player, their actions seem consistent with such a stated goal. I do hope the courts advise Nokia of how close they have come to crossing a line (if indeed they haven't already crossed it) with regards to fair trade practices.

Your thoughts?

[mschere]

IMO: I am confident that that Alston and Bird LLP. is busy researching the Legal (not Moral) implications of the Partners taking a stock position in IDCC, Pre Final Judgement!

Nokia was well represented during the 18 Month Arbitration process..The entire record was offered as exhibits..The time to raise the issues that might have permitted a trigger to Vacate the Award was during the Arbitration proceeding..obviously even IF the Minority Panelist raised these issues..they were certainly addressed and passed ICC review..Alston and Bird can only play with the CARDS that were dealt to them.


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.

[paheka]

Thanks for reitterating what i've continually stated since the award was challenged.The arbitration body is an entity in itself that was contracted[and initiated by Nokia]to avoid costly litigation in the case of dispute.For Nokia to now challenge that "layered" process other than for malfeasance/fraud is a"smokescreen".Rather than believe that the Nokia's lawyering is so inadequate in understanding how to deal with an arbitation loss...i believe Nokia's response was a "knee jerk" reaction to a decision they did not expect to lose!Perhaps Nokia thought that enough money had been spread around to insulate a decision against them?In fact, the reduction of what was really owed was seemingly more an issue for IDC!!Nokia may yet have their reluctance to pay, come back to bite them if the NY FED CT has within its power to enforce additional penalties?If it could go back to arbitration to "refigure" what Nokia should have paid,perhaps the arb board might not be so lenient, especially since the Judge Lynn decision was overturned [some have speculated this hurt us in arbitration}

[revlis]

corp_buyer,

You said, " The body of case law is quite clear that an arbitration award does NOT have to follow NY law,... "


But it is not prohibited from following NY law. The Supreme Court ruling in Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (94-18), 514 U.S. 52 (1995) did not invalidate the Garrity rule. It said that if there is a conflict, then the arbitration rule will be the deciding factor. As I said that IMO, IDCC will prevail in any appeal process. Despite this, I still think there is a good chance that the Judge will modify the award.

[sonetirot]

Corp_Buyer. That is a good post. Thanks

[loophole73]

Corp

Experience has nothing to do with arbitration award award challenge. Nok clearly has given marching orders to delay this case and prosecute patent challenges for 3g through the end of 2006 to its law firm. The obvious reason is to attempt to place IDCC back in survival mode in the later months of 2006. Of course it helped their cause and created delay when Judge Lynn decided to buy whatever it was they were selling at the time. Additionally, the inactivity of the Delaware judge has not hurt their desired result either. The law and precedent has been stacked against Nok all the way. It is the application of same that has been lacking. This phenomenon has enabled Nok to put in the four corners offense at the end of the 2g game and at the beginning of the 3g game.

MO
loop