Replies to post #28277 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[GE_Jim]

Danny, "What I do know is that professional money managers do not like to own stocks where they perceive there is a significant chance of protracted shareholder unrest"

That would also apply to mom and pop shareholders too.

The lobbying group is an interesting sideline feature but doesn't distract my views from the bigger picture. Idcc needs to learn how to produce. Currently they're talking the talk, in the past that amounted to sales tax returns when most were expecting the larger returns the company was hinting at. You know a wink here a wink there, hockey stick and the like. They need Nok/Sam to be resolved as they have presented it will be resolved. No back tracking on this one, and no wiggle room should be given.

The problem I have with that is Nokia and just how easy will they roll over. Another factor is I just don't see what the penalty would be for Nokia not to drag this through arbitration. What would they lose? And if they don't have the incentive to speed along so to speak does that mean IDCC will have to offer a new deal to get them on board within their timetable.

Frankly If I was Nokia that’s what I would do.I'd wait them out. And I certainly wouldn't be in a rush to fork over 100 plus million

In any event they need to get that done, wrapped, and finished. Everything else is minor. Including the options.

[bulldzr]

Danny, Thanks for the thoughtful and compelling post. Compared to my attempts at relating my feelings and anaylsis of IDCC over these many years, posts like yours make mine pale in comparison...however this does'nt take into consideration my extensive contributions here in peripheral areas like "onions" and "softball", LOL!

Seriously, concerning the now notorious PR. As you know I don't share your depth of concern over it's effects on IDCC, but then again I don't have the experience in these things that you possess. I agree with you, and have stated such that it was ill-advised, was not the proper thing to do involving this board as reference, and was un-professional in its delivery. In additon, if the PR "group" was not only sneaky and underhanded in their methods, then they at the least are incompetent.

The question however is what can I do about it? Or what can others on this board do about it?

Will attacking suspected posters on this board with unsubstantiated accusations help the investors here? No, I doubt it.

Will forcing those involved to "stand up and admit it" help? I don't see how.

Was it wrong for me to try to stand up for a previously respected fellow poster that I felt was being unfairly bashed and attacked and browbeaten? Maybe, I hope not, but many here think so and I guess it's too late for me anyway because that's what I did.

So what can I do about it? The solution to combating this situation, if in fact it is as potentially damaging as you suggest, is totally in IDCC's court. Not mine, not yours, not with anybody here I imagine. IDCC management should be the ones dealing with this "problem" if in fact they see it as a problem; just as they should be countering the untimely report about accounting irregularities. I would hope they are privately explaining their position to the "coveted" institutional investors, eve3n though they have refused to dispute these issues in public.

There is nothing I can do, that would be of any investment significance.

[loophole73]

DannyD

What matters do you think are appropriate for a shareholder to discuss with an institution? These #2 proxy contests are going on in the USA and the EU. I would imagine that the institutions are getting fairly accustomed to these issues. Do you think that management is lobbying the institutions? Is it unusual for a broker to lobby institutions on behalf of his shareholder clients? This is the first time that I have been against a proposal of management in 18 years. I am not familiar with the protocol within the industry as to contacting other shareholders including institutions in an effort to present a reasonable case for voting against #2. My broker says that since institutions are now going to be required to publish their voting records, he believes that they will be hard pressed to vote for any measure that could involve dilution. I asked him whether it would make a difference because of the habit and custom in the sector. His reply was that the 1990's customs should not be relied upon because reform and change are on the front burner and nothing formerly customary is safe from being deleted, altered or modified. I know that you have been retired for several years, but if you have discussed the new front with your money managers or remaining industry contacts, it would be interesting to know generally how they are approaching voting in light of the new regs.

loop