Orionscifi .. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I'm not the dumbest either and I couldn't figure out whether the most "venom", as you put it, is coming from the no camp or the yes camp if my life depended on it. Frankly, I couldn't care less who wins the most venomous award .. it is an incredible waste of time to even think about it.
I only care about my investment in IDCC. I feel strongly that the future value of my investment will be primarily determined by what value the institutional investors place on IDCC. I know from my WS experience that institutional investors can be very fickle. A lobby of investors has been formed, some or all of whom I have good reason to strongly suspect are members of this board, to convince the institutional investors to vote no on prop 2. I am concerned that their shareholder activism agenda may extend beyond prop 2 and that the ultimate effect of that will be to cause the institutions to conclude that IDCC management will have their attention diverted by a protracted shareholder revolt for an extended period which in turn will cause the institutions to sell out and look for a company that has little or no prospects for shareholder unrest.
The members on this board that are members of that lobbying group could go a long way in alleviating my concerns, which I suspect are concerns shared by many on this board. All they need to do is to announce they are members of the lobbying effort and give some details about their agenda and their approach that would allay my fears and the fears of others. For the life of me I can't understand why they are so unwilling to do that and that makes me very suspicious of their motives and their tactics.
I raised this point in an e-mail with another member for whom I have the highest respect and was told that anyone that did that would be ripped apart by the more vocal yes proponents on this board. My reaction is so what .. some variation of that is an every day occurence here. I sent an e-mail to someone I am almost certain is a member of the lobbying group. I stated that if he either confirmed or denied his participation in the lobby I would defend him vigorously in whatever way I could from attacks on the board. I never received any reponse to my e-mail.
There have been some very strange things happening in terms of IDCC visibility since the lobbying group was formed. First of all the original PR announcing the formation of the lobbying group went out the day after the best CC this company has ever had. The manner in which it was released made it appear as if it came from IDCC rather than from the lobbying group. It included results from an IHub survey that everyone here recognized was flawed to the point of being highly misleading. Then IDCC suddenly appears on the CFRA radar screen in a PR suggesting there may be some accounting issues at IDCC. This was followed by allegations of a potential previous IDCC ownership conflict for Jim Lurgio that was posted on the board shortly after he announced he was voting yes and encouraged others to do the same. Todays PR in the WSJ was the most bizarre of all.
So I have made several posts that connect all of these events as part of the lobbying group's plan to get prop 2 defeated and then to move on to other objectives in what I believe to be an extensive agenda of shareholder reform formulated by a group of very disgruntled shareholders. I have made it clear that I am very concerned that this may slow the momentum of both the company and institutional ownership, not to mention that it could do irreparable damage in terms of divisevness on this board. I would love to have at least one member of this board to stand up and declare they are also a member of the lobbying group and articulate why my fears are unwarranted. I simply cannot understand why no one will do that and that is probably the most troublesome thing of all.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
