Coin's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/227354/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/84413-interdigital-and-the-itc-staff-report-some-thoughts?source=feed#comment-207388 207388 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:39:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/84256-interdigital-samsung-itc-case-waiting-for-a-decision?source=feed#comment-207277 207277
Vijay, you wrote: "The downside is that if the ALJ upholds the staff's recommendation, then IDCC will lose any right to collect royalties from Samsung in the U.S."

This statement is completely false.

You need to revisit what the ITC is all about. Samsung is using Interdigital's patents. Samsung will eventually pay for their use. The ITC may decide that no Trade violation exists that would warrant an injunction on Samsung's products but this does not mean in any way that Samsung does not owe for the patents in use. Currently, it is believed that the Staff Attorney may have recommended a no violation because he believed that Samsung has an implied license and is thereby not infringing by definition. The fact that they haven't paid yet does not mean that they are in violation by the ITC's definition. The Judge may see it another way altogether, but we don't have that answer as of yet.

Please recheck your facts on what the ITC is and is not and rewrite this article or at least update your readers to the truth of the matter.

If Interdigital fails with the ITC, they will simply have to go back to court the old fashioned way which takes longer for resolution.]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:04:03 -0400
Vijay, you wrote: "The downside is that if the ALJ upholds the staff's recommendation, then IDCC will lose any right to collect royalties from Samsung in the U.S."

This statement is completely false.

You need to revisit what the ITC is all about. Samsung is using Interdigital's patents. Samsung will eventually pay for their use. The ITC may decide that no Trade violation exists that would warrant an injunction on Samsung's products but this does not mean in any way that Samsung does not owe for the patents in use. Currently, it is believed that the Staff Attorney may have recommended a no violation because he believed that Samsung has an implied license and is thereby not infringing by definition. The fact that they haven't paid yet does not mean that they are in violation by the ITC's definition. The Judge may see it another way altogether, but we don't have that answer as of yet.

Please recheck your facts on what the ITC is and is not and rewrite this article or at least update your readers to the truth of the matter.

If Interdigital fails with the ITC, they will simply have to go back to court the old fashioned way which takes longer for resolution.]]>