« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Why not LG? 

By: zzfan in IDCC | Recommend this post (1)
Wed, 05 Oct 11 10:39 AM | 62 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications
Msg. 43136 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 43135 by 1laguy)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

First and foremost, LG is a former licensee. Licenses contain clauses regarding renewal. It is not unusual to find 6 month time periods of continued negotions after a 5 year license. IDCC may have notified LG that the time was up for good faith negotiations and they were no longer under a shield of wrongful infringement. LG may have invoked the dispute resolution clause under the license extending the negotiations for an additional 90 days. This takes us to the close of the third quarter. IDCC filed its action on the first available day of the fourth quarter. This the logical explanantion of the recent filing. I believe IDCC is firming up its enforcement under its present business model in the event it does not go forward with a strategic alternative. I do not believe that IDCC filed the LG action to appease or please any bidder in the ongoing process.

MO
ZZfan


- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Why not LG?
By: 1laguy
in IDCC
Wed, 05 Oct 11 9:51 AM
Msg. 43135 of 48237

Why would IDCC not have added LG?

MPartners says that interested bidders are asking why IDCC doesn't defend their IP and this is a response to that. Why wouldn't IDCC have done this move on their own?


« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next