You're scenario is about as good as any at this point in time. I suspect, however, that there will be some intervening forces long before 3-4 years. The carriers could get fed up and start making noise, although they have less impact on NOK because NOK is doing so little business now with VZ and Sprint. That is one reason why NOK feels it can engage in its tactics. I still think the end of 2008 is fish or cut bait time for NOK. The arbitration should be interesting, since Qcom seeks either a declaration that the option was renewed or Qcom can terminate all rights. We've speculated over various scenarios as to what the option means, but we really don't know. What is really unclear is whether there are any Qcom "non-paid-up" patents that could cut NOK's legs out underneath it. Presumably NOK has tried to avoid using any or it wouldn't be taking the piecemeal payment approach. I doubt if the European exhaustion litigation will be successful. I don't think the Delaware litigation where NOK attempts to get the court to determine a FRANDLY rate will be successful. There are just too many variables, I think, for a court to make a determination. For one thing, nobody knows for sure what IPR will be needed in the future. NOK is seeking a rate and other terms based on a fixed time. Plus, what happens if NOK says it only wants to use x patents and then ends up using more, which are unlicensed? We're back in the same situation where NOK claims it can use them upon a FRANDLY rate? It's a never ending game. If NOK declines to license some patents, then I can't see how it can change its mind later. That's Qcom's argument that it is obligated to license only once. It is going to take an army of lawyers to figure this out, if they even can, and the litigation is so broken up in separate suits and jurisdictions, nobody will see the big picture. The risk, of course, to each company is that there is a really bad result for one.
I really don't think NOK has four years in which it cannot pay without an injunction of some sort. Some court is likely to break the impasse with an injunction if for no other reason than to break the impasse. |
