I can not speak for TC..but I do believe he meant S/E as well as Ericsson..and I tend to agree with him...IMO:The Tantivy vs. Lucent outcome has no relevance to an Ericsson 3G License..
Bill MERRITT, InterDigital - CEO
Thanks Rich, and good morning to everyone. Like Rich, I'm also pleased to be here to talk about a very positive event for the Company. 2 years ago, we told you that the Sony Ericsson and Ericsson agreements provided the financial terms necessary to define Nokia's royalty obligations for 2G and 2.5G handsets and infrastructure. In its award, the arbitration tribunal fully affirmed the Company's position with the one exception being an adjustment of the Sony Ericsson handset rates to account for Nokia's higher sales volume.
For all those involved, both inside and outside the Company, including the law firms of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Fulbright & Jaworski. The proceedings with Nokia had been long and difficult. However, we maintained our position and in the end, prevailed.
This morning, I want to address a number of issues. First, the direct implications of the Nokia award on future issues with Nokia; second, the impacts of the Nokia award on the Samsung arbitration; third, the implications on our patent licensing programs; and finally, the overall implications for the Company. As to the first issue, we now have a favorable and binding determination of how the Nokia patent license agreement works. For example, the rate setting process contained in the license agreement is straightforward. Moreover, it is clear that Sony Ericsson is among the major competitors under the agreement that establishes the financial times necessary to define Nokia's 2G and 3G royalty obligations. The elimination of ambiguity is very important for setting Nokia's 3G rates.
TC,
Just wondering why you think the new licensee might be ERICY and not Sony-Ericsson.
I thought the general consensus was that ERICY was waiting on the outcome of the Tantivy v. Lucent case.
Dave
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
