Sophist, a few comments
I respect your statement on prudence and I hope to gain an understanding of what is prudent in this situation.
Prudence is one of the most valued of moral virtues and pertains to knowing HOW and WHEN to act appropriately in a given set of circumstances and in accord with one's highest goals.
My highest goal for my investment is maximizing the long term stock price. Does that mean addressing the IMO excessive pay of the upper management now, risking distracting them from more important matters while having little chance of achieving the goal, or does one let it the excesses continue unchecked until a more appropriate time allowing dilution to continue while we wait? Both sides of the argument are represented by folks I've come to respect and there are valid points on each side. I do lean towards raising the issue, but I'm interested in other points of view. I found some of your points to be off the mark and would like your clarification if you feel it would further understanding to me and others.
Rmarchma (with a self-selected group of other board members) took it upon himself to first contact the IDCC Board of Directors with a list of "governance and communication concerns and suggestions"
When shareholders have those types of concerns the appropriate contact point is the BoD. They are elected by us and theoretically responsible to us. Is there a more appropriate place to raise these issues?
...as a result some large institutional investors either partially or completely SOLD their shares of IDCC (among them Colorado State pension funds) I don't know the exact time sequencing of all this, but it appears to be over the past couple of months. Now, I ask, does the recent steady decline in IDCC share price coincide with these institutional sell-offs? ...
This meeting was scheduled for October, and Colorado was out by December. The stock price did not fall past the high 14’s until the trial delay was announced in January. I don’t see any appearance of a correlation.
To be so obsessed with the paltry distributive injustices at IDCC, which are like a speck of dust, a grain of sand, or drop of water in the vast ocean of horrific distributive injustice that infects and plagues almost every aspect of this country's and the whole world's system of inequitable wealth distribution
I am a self centered person, so I am interested in things that affect me. That’s why I am care about what I view as an injustice with IDCC, while I frankly don’t care much about many things that are more significant to more enlightened people. Having my investment needlessly diluted by 10%-20% is damn significant to me. While my net worth is a speck of dust compared to many people and almost all companies or governments, it is vital to me.
Finally, to summarize my argument, it is my view that most of the IDCC governance and communication issues, which are of such concern to many, are inextricably entangled with its current licensing and legal problems/battles and therefore cannot be effectively addressed until the latter issues, which are of more immediate and primary concern, are themselves first substantially resolved.
I completely agree that on the communication side, having more communication would be counterproductive, as our competitors and opponents would gain from specific disclosures about trial or licensing strategy. I disagree that the compensation issue is something that could affect other, more important matters. However, the question of timing is a good one and should be carefully considered.
I reluctantly confess that I am now in greater fear of the activities of some members of this board than of any that may come from IDCC.
Relax, if this type of action had any real chance of affecting short term share price, folks would short stocks and do it all the time. Given the lack of substantive news (except for the Dallas 3), folks are going to get impatient and focus on other things. You should take heart in the likelihood that absolutely nothing (good or bad) will come from it.
