Revlis
Just drop the dilution nonsense. Of course you include any option that is in the money. I am sick and tired of this distraction. The fact is they have been awarded. When HC made his loan and took control, the company had 24 million shares outstanding. I do not know when enough is enough for anyone other than me, but I was the staunchest BOD defender against Ronnie and DD until the BOD made the last request. That put me to the enough stage. This nonsense can be argued for years and there is no winner. I read all of the posts and I did not see any wool pulling by anyone. Why did you not raise your points when the debate was going on ad infinitum. You certainly were reading every document. The fact is that the institutions believe that IDCC is over the acceptable dilution limit (how that is determined, you will have to ask them) and that is the reason for the defeat. The individual shareholders could not have defeated this issue. Personally, I would rather keep the institutional ownership over any whining individuals. Put your Rooty Kazooty hat on and provide guidance as to the revenue impact of the recent licensees. This would serve this forum far better than the mudslinging you are engaging in at the present.
Jim is dead wrong about Ronnie only contributing financial information. He has figured out the tea leave riddled licensing page now gone but not forgotten. He had the Nok matter pegged to the day. Now, as far as I know it was reported that HC was communicating with Mr. X after the meeting. This is certainly a step in the right direction. The BOD is the laison between the company and the shareholders. This is the way the laws are written. Directors should expect to be contacted by shareholders. The officers of the company run the day to day affairs and should not be interrupted with distractions. If HC is working on day to day business, then the shareholders should be made aware and another board member be designated to handle the questions of shareholders.
Was it activism when the RB board through DannyD contacted IDCC regarding COMMUNICATION? Remember those days and the report by DannyD that he could speak about the result, but he would watch them closely over the next 6 months. Remember the insinuations by some that he sold us out and had gotten some insider information. Well, DannyD is still posting today and that makes me believe that he saw some progress because I never considered what he was doing to be underhanded. In fact, I trusted his judgment completely. Ken posts that the IR purported to represent him which is as far from being accurate as it could possibly be. I am sure he believes that, but if it were the case, the entire IHUB board would have been asked to participate just as the RB board did with DannyD a few years back.
This board is trying to continue to be worth reading, but the continued divisiveness will kill it for sure. Mschere certainly wants Ronnie to keep posting as I do because he is a proven information provider. The vote is over, the company is still open and doing business and the Nok matter is still on the horizon. All of wireless knows just how tough Nok is when it comes to paying for royalties. When the ref makes his 3 count and raises the arm of IDCC as the winner, the momentum will escalate to new heights. It is time to focus on the future and not dwell in the past. Mickey was mistaken earlier about Samsung being on board for 3g. Samsung 2g rates are governed by the Nok rate under the MFL arbitration ruling. Once Nok drops its quasi title for official 2g paying licensee, then the company is going to have a lot of clout moving forward for 3g licenses as well as 2g.
This post contains forward looking statements because the author wants the board to move forward and not be bogged down in the past.
MO
loop
