AMS you said it was immature to say that all are in the same boat in regards to the D&O insurance, but I stand by what I said. While I don't have a link, I have read in several magazines/papers that while some insurance costs have stabilized, D&O insurance is still rising at a rapid rate. In my position I read various publications to see what the trends are in our overall cost structure, and insurance is one of those costs.
While my company does not have the need for D&O insurance as we are a small closely held company, I still read about the trends. One of the trends is that due to all the problems created by the crooks on Wall Street, the cost of D&O insurance is expected to continue to increase at very high rates. Couple that with the fact that IDCC has now added a few more members to the BOD, and the D&O insurance for those who understand it, is bound to rise.
You said that due to the lack of patent litigation, our insurance costs should be decreasing. The cost of D&O insurance has almost no bearing on how many IPR infringement claims we may have going. The cost is based on the insurance industries estimate of what is the likelihood of the Officers and Directors being sued as a result of their performance on the job. Well with all the scandals on Wall Street, the chances of the Directors and Officers at public companies being sued continues to rise, not just IDCC directors, but all directors.
My guess is also that to some extent the cost of D&O insurance is also based on the market cap of the company, although this is strictly a guess on my part. Since our market cap has risen until recently, if the market cap determines the premiums then it would also explain some of the increase.
As far as the company indicating it would be shedding jobs, I just have missed that one because as far as I know, they have said they will continue to increase their investment in technology while maintaining a strong balance sheet. I can't see how anyone can fault management in this area. I would think our balance sheet is the envy of many companies.
As far as the rejection of the options is concerned, did you really think when that proposal was defeated, that the employees who are no longer getting the options at the same rate wouldn't supplement the "lost compensation" in some other way, namely cash. To me, pay them only in cash because cash if fully measurable and they can't hide behind some fringe benefit whose true cost can easily be disguised.
I believe the loss of $10 per share is due mainly to the company's inability for now to land the big contract. The delay in Nokia to me is the major reason, along with the slide in Nasdaq, for the fall off. Also remember that we rose to the $27 level on pure speculation and no news. So take away the $3-4 rise on no news and our fall was not so dramatic. It was still large but there is no doubt in my mind that we will easily eclipse the $27 price target within the next year, and my bet is it will happen much sooner.
I believe Howard when he said there are times when there is a a lull in the licensing activity, and then all of a sudden there is a flurry of activity all at once. Look at IDCC's past history of licensing, many times it comes in bunches. I believe it will happen again this year. I also believe Howard when he said we will land the big one that Merrit talked about.
Just like you said that sometimes it is necessary to remove the blinkers (although in the US I think you mean blinders) to actually see what is going on, I also think you need to open your mind to the possibilities that Howard talked about during the cc. If you don't believe they will come through, then I think you should do as you said you would, sell and move on. For me, I believe Howard and have placed my bets accordingly.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
