Replies to post #28784 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[witchhollow]

Loop: Just remember who is driving the bus with regard to IDCC. I'm not, nor are you. The bus appears to be rolling down the road to further success and yet some passengers are squawking and in my opinion distracting the driver.(You know, back seat drivers...)

Now in my book, you either trust the driver or get off the bus. Since Wednesday the 14th it appears you have been very distrusting and negative publically with regard to IDCC's management. I'm on the bus too, remember? And I for one think your public criticism has done nothing but rattle other passengers and more importantly distracted the driver.

You've hurt more than you have helped. Hell, loop, if you don't think management is doing a good job, why don't you just start a shareholder rebellion and try to clean out the entire management team instead of simply and bitterly voting against a proposal just so you can pound your chest. I'd say after all you have been through with this company and all that you know about it, your jumping on the vote "no" bandwagon is just plain petty...Oh and bitter as well.

Ken

[texb]

Loop, I agree that timing is crucial...

You wrote: I have not said no to the "O" word forever. I have said no at this time.

If management would bring us a Nokia/Samsung rate settlement as promised (or better), I'd change my vote on Proposal 2 in a heartbeat.

Short of that, I don't believe in prepaying bonuses.

texb

[STINVESTOR]

Loop:
An absolutely brilliant riposte to EVERY YES argument yet advanced!!! Blow the whistle - game, match and set!! Anything more on the subject is pure SMOKE.
STINVESTOR

[Danny Detail]

Loop .. Good post except for mentioning the TSs .. I was into them big time on the basis that the tax write-offs would be for the period promised. Remember the government allowed these as incentives for people to invest where it would do "the country the most good." (As I recall mine were all "Section 8, i.e., low income housing" ..I think that was the term). Then tax reform came in and they were eliminated which was OK, but they didn't "grandfather" the ones in existence at the time and guys like me had very large annual payments still to make for several years with no corresponding tax benefit! Some people just refused to make the payments which caused some of the projects to go under for lack of funding and created a big legal mess for the ones not paying.

this management group has created "O" plans without shareholder approval in the past and if an emergency arises before the next ASM, I have the utmost confidence that they will do it again.

(My bolding.)

That is a source of comfort since if #2 is voted down the chances of getting something with shareholder approval in the near future is slim and none IMO. One of my primary concerns is that I don't want at this point to see a company I'm invested in to be put at a competitive disadvantage on the basis of "contemplated legislative reforms." Those reforms have a way of never happening or ending up significantly watered down and/or containing grandfathering clauses. I think there are many companies planning on that and acting accordingly and some of them may be IDCC's competitors. I can't remember exactly what happened and when, but I believe it was in President Kennedy's administration that he asked one or two industries to voluntarily reduce their exports. Sure enough a bunch of companies did it for the good of the country but an even bigger bunch didn't. The next year the government made mandatory export quotas for all of the companies in those industries and they set the number at the level each company had exported the previous year! So the "good guys" got screwed. I've been pretty leary of "voluntary reform" ever since. It is not out of the realm of possibility that the same could happen with the "O" word. Trying to read "governmental tea leaves" is orders of magnitude more difficult than attempting to read "company tea leaves" even for a company like IDCC.