rmarchma, re Espy --
first off, and of course, I categorically reject your fundamentally self-serving/self-fulfilling premise that "the best way to affect[sic] positive and needed changes at IDCC is to replace the existing outside directors with better ones, who will be more responsive and accountable to the outside shareholders" -- this includes my rejection of the notion that the changes you and Espy seek would in balance be at all 'positive', and thus in corollary also of the notion that there is any 'need' for such changes -- and btw, in the quoted language, instead of saying 'the outside shareholders', which implies all outside shareholders, you really should have been honest and said 'the outside shareholders who happen to share Mr. Espy's and my agenda'
also btw, was this post of yours, or has any other post of yours ever been, required to have been, or in fact, reviewed by or on behalf of Mr. Espy before you posted it? -- and for that matter, are you/how long have you been on his payroll? -- like it or not, these are fair questions in light of your floating the trial-balloon that Espy would be an "ideal candidate" to replace any one of IDCC's current outside directors, especially as this is just the latest in a series of initiatives in his and your rank ambition to cram your arm-chair know-it-alls' agenda down IDCC's throat (and thus down the throats of all IDCC shareholders who, like me, strongly disagree with that agenda)
and just what exactly is(are) your and Espy's ultimate goal(s), anyway? -- to take over IDCC's BOD (and thus IDCC itself)? to force a wholesale change of management? to force a near-term sell-out of IDCC for a short-sighted short-term gain? -- again, a fair question to which I don't recall your or Espy's having ever provided a clear answer -- or did you indeed mean to confirm an answer of 'potentially all of the above' when you wrote "Myself[sic] and others are dreaming of a day when IDCC has top-notch capable leadership."?
but even if I did accept your fundamental premise, your assertion that there is any real basis in anything we know about Mr. Espy, either from what he has displayed or from what you have so carefully decided (or been allowed) to share from time to time, for concluding that he would be a 'better' replacement for any of IDCC's current outside directors, at least for any purpose other than your pursuit of his and your own agenda, is flatly ridiculous:
-- he evidently has no 'experience' in high-tech, let alone in telecommunications, let alone in wireless (even HC, in fact an 'inside' director, by now has meaningful such experience)
-- with your help, and using actual existing institutional investors as cover, he tried to stage an ambush meeting with HC that you both knew (or should have known) HC could not possibly permit under Reg FD -- leading directly to a significant short-term negative impact on IDCC's share price in the fallout after HC cancelled on short notice, as he had to do, upon finally learning that Espy was also to be at that meeting -- a stunningly 'professional' act of 'leadership' by Espy, indeed
-- he was the principal actor behind that options PR that just somehow managed to hit the wire identifying IDCC as its source, thus securing the PR vastly broader distribution and readership than it otherwise would have had (not to mention the outrageous use in the PR, without jimlur's prior knowledge or consent, of that iHub survey); and (in a coincidence?) in that PR he hid behind a consultant and remained anonymous, rather than having the character to at least identify himself, if not also his cohorts, as the source of the PR -- yet another stunningly 'professional' act of 'leadership' by Espy, I must admit (backed up by that boffo little performance of his at the last ASM -- a true 'professional' and 'leader', no doubt about it -- . . .)
-- that he is a friend of Steve Forbes is irrelevant (at best); does he have any OTHER 'extensive and important political connections' (whatever the hell that means; sounds like pig in a poke stuff to me) that we should know about, that could conceivably be of any direct relevance to IDCC's business and prospects? -- similarly, that he has been deeply involved in campaign fund-raising is also irrelevant (at best) (didn't Forbes run using only his own money, or was that someone else?)
-- so he "is very connected to some of the largest retail investment houses" -- so what? -- is the idea that as soon as he becomes a director they'll all just say 'hey, now THAT'S more like it' and come out with $50+ 'strong buys'? -- or is the idea perhaps instead that they'll all be looking to and lobbying him to put IDCC in play and throw them that nice little piece of business? -- and even if it is echoed by some of Espy's vaunted 'extensive and important Wall Street and financial connections' (once again, whatever the hell that means; sounds like more pig in a poke stuff to me), your and Espy's relentless whining about insider sales remains overblown hogwash, and is clearly indicative of a very short-term perspective that is highly unlikely to have anything to do with what is truly in the best interests of IDCC and its shareholders
-- he's been an IDCC shareholder since '97 -- well, so have I, and any number on these boards have been IDCC shareholders for far longer -- and likewise re his having been "an active investor in corporate securities for years" -- well, whoopdeedoo; most of us on these boards have been also
-- re he has "previously been a director of a public company" -- AND . . .?? -- what company? when? for how long? how did he get nominated and appointed/elected? what if anything in particular did he do for that company (or TO it) while he was a director? why isn't he still a director -- did the company get bought out or go out of business, or did he leave his directorship for some other reason? did the company prosper under his guiding hand, or did it flounder? -- it was a PUBLIC company, after all; if he's going to put forward his having been a director as some sort of reason why anyone should pay him any particular attention, he should also provide enough information so one could check the public information to see what that company's business was and how that company (and its share price) did during his tenure
so much for Espy's supposed qualifications to be a 'better' outside director of IDCC than any of the current ones . . .
a final thought -- any candidate to be a director of IDCC must be able to be trusted implicitly to keep confidential all that he will learn about IDCC that must be kept confidential, and also to not be a loose cannon who may just start making his own calls to whomever in pursuit of his own agenda should he ever happen to find himself in disagreement with his fellow directors and management; what I've learned of Espy thus far does anything but inspire my confidence in these absolutely crucial respects
