Replies to Msg. #658896
.
 Msg. #  Subject Posted by    Board    Date   
43151 Re: Why not LG?
   Makes perfect sense - this continues to be business as usual which is...
micromays2   IDCC   06 Oct 2011
12:07 AM
43137 Re: Why not LG?
   I agree. It's not like whomever is looking to buy the patents from ID...
1laguy   IDCC   05 Oct 2011
10:44 AM

The above list shows replies to the following message:

Re: Why not LG?

By: zzfan in IDCC
Wed, 05 Oct 11 10:39 AM
Msg. 43136 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 43135 by 1laguy)
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