Corp .. As usual you put "costs" related to IDCC in the most unfavorable light possible. In point of fact, only the first item is a true cost at this point and the $10 million is just an estimate on your part at that. In all of your other so-called costs, the cost might be nothing more than the time value of money since nothing has been decided and ultimately the only cost will be the cost of delays (i.e. typically calculated as the interest lost on monies that could have been collected earlier).
Once NOK filed for arbitration, could any of these "costs" been avoided by IDCC and if so, how? Can ypu point to another instance where $250,000,000 and the likelihood of achieving a true watershed event for a company was achieved at such a small cost? Some would argue that any management responsible for such an achievement, particularly in the face of such David vs Goliath odds, is deserving of the compensation you indicated they received. In fact, most longs on this board feel exactly that way. They lay the blame almost exclusively at NOK's feet for their unethical business practices and overreaching legal tactics.
You on the other hand as ususal imply that IDCC management incompetence was the root cause of these "costs" and indicate that they were unjustly rewarded in the process. You make NO comments regarding the difficulty of their task. For the last two years there have been three consistent themes (both implicit and explicit) in your posts about IDCC on this board: 1. The day-to-day management of IDCC is neither a complex or difficult task , 2. In spite of the relative ease of running IDCC, the management has been consistently and significantly incompetent in doing so and 3. the management has rewarded themselves to excess in light of #1 and #2.
Most on this board disagree with at least one of your conclusions, if not all three. Some have been personally abusive ito you in expressing their disagreement while many others have not and have very effectively refuted some of your opinions/assertions. Several have suggested, correctly IMO, that your credibility on this board has been irreparably damaged by your posts and responses of late. A very significant number of posters have been so put off by your views and approach that they felt compelled to put their names on a public list in opposition, something they previously would have never thought of doing. Others believe, as do I, that your posts are motivated by a hidden personal agenda that is at odds with the best interests of long term shareholders of IDCC.
Under the circumstances I dare say you can't feel particularly welcome here. Yet you continue on undaunted in the pursuit of new ways (since repetitive posts are a violation of TOS) to try to convince this board that you are right and the vast majority here are wrong about your three themes regarding the management of IDCC. Perhaps if I and others could understand how you expect to help the long term IDCC shareholders (in specific ways with specific time frames) we would have greater respect for your opinions. I'm offering you an opportunity to do that now and I promise to respond "point-by-point" as you always request. How about it?
MO,
Danny
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
