Replies to post #27434 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[bulldzr]

Ronnie, this proxy, while important to many, will become a non-issue soon after it is finalized. Just as after a contentious general election, like the last Pres election and the 92 Pres election, the majority of the country accepted the results and united as Americans. Only the far out fringes of either side continued to contest and argue the results, and no one with any sense really listened to them. I.E "Clinton never got a majority" in '92 and the whole "hanging chad" and irregular voting issues in 2000..who really cares now? I predict the same will happen with IDCC shareholders, at least I hope.

You said..."Now ask yourself, why do you think they would now be pleading for additional votes when they have never done that before?"

Maybe because they were never challenged before with a widely distributed PR negative to their proposals. Not because they had a hard count, IMO.

[Norfolk]

I wish I could be a fly on the wall, when the Bod has a meeting to discuss them losing proposal #2..........maybe they will wake up........................I wont hold my breath though

[witchhollow]

rmarchma: From your post:

"Even though the proxy votes are being tabulated by some outside firm, I would imagine that IDCC can get a tabulated updates of the voting every day. I don't know this for sure, but I am basing it on an earlier post. Some poster had called Janet just after the proxy voting began, and according to the poster Janet indicated that the No votes were winning at that point. I don't remember who the poster was or exactly when it was posted, but I do remember the gist of that post. IDCC is paying the outside firm for this tabulating service and should be entitled to updates."

The word "basing" in your second sentence was mispelled. I think you meant to type "bashing".

Your entire post makes me sick! Any breath of respect I had left for you was lost in this post I quote from. Insulting you any further will get me kicked off this board, but just keep in mind that some here will not forget who and what you are.

marchma, my advice to you.....Go burn a US flag and light the doobie already in your feable hand with the flames.

Ken

[blueskywaves]

Some poster had called Janet just after the proxy voting began, and according to the poster Janet indicated that the No votes were winning at that point. I don't remember who the poster was or exactly when it was posted, but I do remember the gist of that post

RMARCHMAN

Neo-nazis, eh? Is this why you keep on using BIG LIE tactics? This is beneath you! LOL.

Look, if the proxy voting just started then how can IDCC get any kind of unofficial result that the NO votes were winning? Why would they even release that kind of information that early?

This is obviously a fairly self-evident lie that you are only too willing to perpetuate to further your agenda.

This is kinda' like your use of the highly misleading study of 17 small cap tech companies to support your wild allegations of excessive compensation levels at IDCC. Or your use of 48M shares (1998) as the arbitrary and misleading baseline for measuring dilution when you know for a fact that IDCC spent nearly $250M from 1999 to 2002 in cumulative operating expenses
not fully covered by operating cash flow?

The ownership base of this company changes every trading day. That's why only the last proxy vote counts. Did you know that in the recent CA and HPQ proxy battles, new proxy votes were sent out every 7-10 days to account for the rapid changes in ownership?

You're on ignore. LOL.

From the DEF14A:

Only holders of record of shares of Common Stock at the close of business on April 21, 2003 are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournments or postponements of the Annual Meeting........................................A proxy may be revoked at any time before it is voted at the Annual Meeting.

Proxies may be revoked by timely delivery of (a) a timely notice of revocation in writing or by electronic transmission to the Corporate Secretary of the Company or the Company’s designated agent, (b) a properly executed, later-dated proxy, or (c) attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person (although attendance at the Annual Meeting will not, by itself, constitute a revocation of a proxy). To be eligible to vote in person at the Annual Meeting, a shareholder must be the registered owner of the shares or, if the shares are held in the name of a broker or bank, bring a legal proxy obtained from such broker or bank.