You make a lot over IPR companies having much more “litigation risks”, which is inherent in any company and more so with product-based companies. Therefore I don’t understand how a pure IPR company without any product liability has more litigation exposure, and thus has to pay more compensation than anyone else.
You're quibbling over this point? Unlike most product companies with insurance, a pure IPR company that loses its patent cases usually goes out of business.
Why should a wireless engineer work for a company with high litigation risks for anything less than above average market compensation. Higher risks, higher rewards, remember?
I understand your excessive compensation thesis forces you to skew the data a certain way, but try to get some distance and use common sense. Keep in mind that IDCC was forced to scramble to finance its operations and recruit talent after the 1995 Motorola debacle - the Survival stage.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
