The only draw back is that we will have to admit to incompetence in order to prevail. We are just going to have to admit that while we believed the Apple rate was good, we did not include any safeguards to protect us in case the volume went viral. Apple was a new entrant into the wireless telephony sector. The other companies already have a track record of volume and production contracts for the future from which we can state this is our net net rate for their use in production. We must distinguish the Apple matter from all others. It may be time for a few mea culpas from WM and the licensing team. While new entrant status is certainly no excuse for the result due to lack of protection in the license, it does explain the seeming enormous difference in what we are asking others to agree to for a FRANDLY royalty rate. The Apple rate is UNFRANDLY and it must be corrected upon expiration. It hurts that the term was 7 years. IDCC must show that it would be wrong to base a FRAND rate on a mutual misunderstanding with one who had no track record.
Teecee is correct, this filing with the EU has all of the earmarks that the lawyers have told them bad news about the odds of losing at the ITC.
MO
zz
| 