Biajj2too / Re: ACER is dismissed .. It's not a surprise about Acer
in response to
by
posted on
Sep 18, 2013 11:24AM
I would also think that with ACER's trial set to preceed the HTC trial, if their exposure was indeed lower as you surmise, it would be best NOT to give HTC a preview.
As for ACER's exposure being less because it's from laptops vs phones, I don't understand how that would matter based on what the court filings have disclosed, which is that we charge license fees based on how much revenue is produced by infringing products, not the type of product. Of course, that has to be qualified with the facts that companies like Caterpillar who have products that contain infringing tech that sell for tens and hundreds of thousands bought licenses for much less than others who sell small devices that contain infringing tech. I'm not sure what the intervening rights issue's impact is, but will take your word for it. In the end though, ACER seems very similar to HP and Fujitsu IMO and should be held to a similar fee at minimum (at least as propotionate to their revenue vs HP & Fujitsu's revenue).
Regarding Amazon, I'm not sure why we would settle with them at this point other than for spending money. According to what I've read, their court cases at the NDOC were on indefinite stay pending resolution of the ITC matter. Assuming we would appeal that matter or even if we didn't, we were still quite a ways from the court house steps from any case other than HTC or ACER at this stage. Considering we alleged, and that Amazon publicly confirmed that we claimed their exposure was in the $59M range, it will be very disappointing if we find out Amazon has settled for under $30M. My gut tells me they likely settled for under $5M, but that's my PTSC induced cynism showing.
Let's hope HTC is the benchmark case for us and that we go the distance, but like you, I have doubts that our side has the stomach for it. One thing is certain, if we settle now for anything less than very large fees from HTC, PTSC shareholders will be singularly disadvantaged when compared to the others involved who have all contractually staked their claims to MMP revenues. Our BOD better be looking out for us!