|IMO you've made the critical points but I'm going to frame the argument differently, and it hopefully will highlight why I believe we are likely to see this drag into 2018 and get rather......contentious...|
The leverage in this negotiation is not based on one fulcrum because it is not based on one moment in time, it is a moving and fluid target. I'll narrow it for sake of argument to a day in each of the 5/6 years we hope the agreement spans.
- 7/1/18 - I would consider Samsung's leverage virtually zero, almost laughable, they cannot produce a commercial OLED without a license and UDC emitters.
- 7/1/19 - Ligands patents still valid, very unlikely but not impossible that commercial TADF emitters could be available. Still major advantage UDC.
- 7/1/20 - Now we are getting to a situation. Ligands patents begin to expire. TADF emitters are much more in the realm of reality, remembering we are speculating about their availability today. Advantage UDC.
- 7/1/21 - New world. Ligands patents expired or expiring worldwide. Are we relying on the 4000 patents now? Still betting TADF is not a viable option? IMO we have arrived at Advantage Samsung.
- 7/2/22 - Advantage Samsung
Note when I say Advantage Samsung I am talking in a negotiation. What actually transpires will come to pass in the fullness of time. What Samsung has to accept for a one year extension is not what they have to accept for a 6 year deal.
PS - And also note the patent leverage was much stronger in 2011 and we know what we got.