Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: moose Re: http:// (Data) ...

By: Rakitno in IDCC | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 08 Jun 12 12:51 AM | 422 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications 		Msg. 45386 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 45377 by Data_Rox)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

You're an engineer and not a dollars and sense/cents guy but in case otherwise, I will ask ...

Why is there a focus on the effective rate?

With a fixed contract a rate is agreed upon. The volume is used based upon projections. Using the multiplication table, a total revenue is calculated and paid in installments.

How can, for example, an LG argue that the rate should be lowered based upon what turned out to be the effective rate? The effective rate is not the rate initially agreed upon. They initially agreed upon an actual rate and because they "knocked it out of the park" the effective rate came out lower compared to the actual rate (ie. the positives for a manufacturer to sign a fixed agreeement if your bat is corked).

The disputes appear to be between what the cost was and these companies want to maintain it, IDCC thinks otheriwse and want to focus on the actual rate agreed upon in the fixed agreement.

Effective rates are like snowflakes, no two are alike. The effective rate is going to be different for everyone with a fixed contract. But the actual rate, agreed in the contracts, could/should be all the same.

P.S. Wedding was good. Music was fun. Nothing like leaving a wedding and having the question "Where are they now?" answered by "They do weddings?!"


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
moose Re: http://www.josephnyc.com/blog/?blogID=1567
By: Data_Rox in IDCC
Thu, 07 Jun 12 5:37 PM 		Msg. 45377 of 48237

hey Moose.....really no idea what the sticking point(s) are....but per the company they had been having "discussions" with LG prior to the contract expiration in 2010. I would expect that LTE was certainly a point in the negotiation.

what we do know is that LG essentially wiped the slate in 2006 for all prior usage, plus got paid up on GSM during the course of the contract, plus coverage on everything through 2010. During that time LG became a top 5 vendor (number 3 in 2009 and 2010 with ~8% share)....2011 saw steep decline in unit shipments....but they only moved down to number 4. Add them all up and the effective rate per unit appears to be under $0.50 (maybe well under).

So maybe they want to back out 2G, and then add LTE....giving them basically the same deal...as you said. Maybe they think that having paid GSM gives them access to other patents...dunno.


Suspect it maybe about LTE?

Maybe Data Rox can go into more detail.

I got a feeling LG wants the same deal they got last time and maybe Interdigital wants more for LTE included in the contract. Just a thought. Not sure.

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