You said the following ..
"...perhaps the biggest factor is related to the SA review and why IDCC decided to explore its options last year when they announced it. IDCC, as well as the rest of market, knows that their mismatched licensing agreements of the past have put them in a difficult position. Clearly Apple (+ its ODMs) has enjoyed a competitive advantage over its competitors because of the terms of its agreement with IDCC. This could be a big reason why others have been resistant to renew their agreements (such as LG)."
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=65&mn=61639&pt=msg&mid=11480192
If, as you say, the Apple agreement could be a reason why others have been resistant to renew their agreements, an agreement signed in 2007 ... Why would Samsung sign an agreement in January 2009 for nearly 5 times as much, also for a fixed fee agreement? Samsung could have taken the path that Nokia did, but did not, even a year and a half after the Apple agreement was signed.
InterDigital gives licensees an option to sign an initial fixed fee or a variable rate agreeement. These licensees full well know that the second agreement, once a sales patern has been established, that the renewed agreement will be variable rate. Why LG is balking now when they knew the rules of the game is confusing, it may have more to do with them being a nobody (comparatively) in the smart phone market and likely point to Ericsson rather than Apple as to why they want to delay.
If anyhting, LG may object to the rate being charged per device in the Apple agreement, this very likely is the same rate that Samsung is paying per device, if not more possibly because of the additional patents from 2007 to 2009.
| 
