Replies to post #17050 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Corp_Buyer]

Zip - In response to your concerns ...

"1.On materiality of indemnifier disclosure: The conference on 3/17 did not mention ... The price went up. Insiders sold. The 10 K disclosed it. The price went down. Does this wash?"

We cannot assume cuase and effect of these events. I don't like the insider sales and I really don't like the stock price decline, however, there are many possible reasons for the sale and many more reasons for the price decline. Evidently, the disclosure was not material, otherwise, the Officers could not have sold just prior to its disclosure.

"2.Ditto on the 10 K disclosure that Sharp has not renewed"

The Sharp expiration was expected. We have been told it is being renegoiated and expected to renew. If there is any reason for the Officers to believe otherwise at this time, they could not have sold.

"3.CC was very optimistic that NOK would pay... DAYS was thrown out. No update ... Insiders sell 10 days later. The price goes down. What is the public to think?"

Again we cannot assume cause and effect. Again, if the Officers have knowledge that NOK will not pay, then the Officers could not have sold.

'4."If QCOM has been handing out indemnifications like candy,then IDCC might end up owning(or severely damaging) QCOM." Sure, just like they ended up owning or damaging ERICY!'

IDCC's statements about essential patents in the 10k are just too strong (plus our new patents in the US and Europe). We have the goods, there is no doubt about that, especially in 3G. So, if it is true that a competitor has been blocking customers from licensing with IDCC as a broad industry issue, then I believe such is a violation of antitrust laws and the US could and would prosecute. I cannot imagine that such blocking could be treated as a mere difference in opinion as to IDCC's patents as one poster suggested. If Qcom owes IDCC royalties on behalf of the entire industry due to foolish and illegal indemnifications then yes, IDCC will end up owning or severely damaging Qcom (unlike the Ericy situation). However, the magnitude is no where near this severe since we can dismiss our largest customers from this issue due to 3G contracts in the oven with them. This issue appears to be a fringe issue that needed be disclosed because it was "raised" to IDCC, but not a material issue that would have stopped Officer sales prior to its disclosure. Perhaps it is Ericy again that has indemnified MOT (in addition to Sony)?

Best Regards,
Corp_Buyer