Replies to post #29612 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[jmspaesq]

OrionSciFi:Vote NO then. That's Up To You

But after being here for all of two days, maybe you oughta wait a bit before making judgments about posters and the content of posts and where most of the venom is coming from?!!!?.

FYI: I for one don't especially appreciate your
(mis)characterizing me based on your misperception of one post I made that you happened to see and putting me on some complaint list!

FYI: I was baiting them to come forward prompted by corpbuyer's galling and absurd challenge that F6 oughta apologize to the anonymous gutless wonders! (gimme a break!!)

Yeah I know that you said earlier that you think it is gutsy somehow to pay for PR which is something I don't follow the exact connection between laying out a few bucks and guts? As a matter of fact, the reason that they paid most likely had NOTHING to do with 'guts' but what they perceived their own self interest to be. Either they feel that they are losing money based on the incredibly overblown and misstated exaggerated dilution argument OR they were shorts trying to create a negative image of the company by suggesting some kind of scandal involving self dealing and unjust enrichment.

What would have shown guts was standing up and standing behind what they said--not with money but by STANDING UP! It takes more guts to do that then lay out a few $$$ IMHO

Your assertion that 'most of the venom' is coming from the YES camp is IMHO incorrect--based apparently on your limited sampling of the posts on the board. If you want to see venom you should see what's been said about management, what's been said about Jimlur, what's been said about ME and others.

Listen: we are ALL tired of this issue and the constant drumbeat--and that is not coming from the YES camp. I don't see anyone from the YES camp trying to persuade others to vote YES--just saying why THEY are voting YES

I do see at least one NO voter who doesn't post on ANY other topic and who ends EVERY post advocating that others vote NO.

I see an organized campaign from the NO voters--or at least a few of them.

I see the yeses responding sometimes. Yesterday I begged them to stop trying to drag me back into the whole discussion saying that the dead horse had been beaten more than enough and that soon someone would be calling PETA.

I also see that various people from both sides have STOOD UP and said why THEY are voting YES or NO.

And I respect them whether I agree or not. Reasonable minds can differ IMHO. And that's fine.

But what the folks behind the PR did was sneaky manipulative underhanded misleading and unfair to the members of this board. They deliberately created the impression that they spoke not just for themselves, but for the rest of us too. And that is what created the bitterness and divisiveness and the hard feelings--not their NO position.

FYI I wasn't 'attacking' anyone. Anonymous people can't be 'attacked' IMHO

[Danny Detail]

Orionscifi .. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I'm not the dumbest either and I couldn't figure out whether the most "venom", as you put it, is coming from the no camp or the yes camp if my life depended on it. Frankly, I couldn't care less who wins the most venomous award .. it is an incredible waste of time to even think about it.

I only care about my investment in IDCC. I feel strongly that the future value of my investment will be primarily determined by what value the institutional investors place on IDCC. I know from my WS experience that institutional investors can be very fickle. A lobby of investors has been formed, some or all of whom I have good reason to strongly suspect are members of this board, to convince the institutional investors to vote no on prop 2. I am concerned that their shareholder activism agenda may extend beyond prop 2 and that the ultimate effect of that will be to cause the institutions to conclude that IDCC management will have their attention diverted by a protracted shareholder revolt for an extended period which in turn will cause the institutions to sell out and look for a company that has little or no prospects for shareholder unrest.

The members on this board that are members of that lobbying group could go a long way in alleviating my concerns, which I suspect are concerns shared by many on this board. All they need to do is to announce they are members of the lobbying effort and give some details about their agenda and their approach that would allay my fears and the fears of others. For the life of me I can't understand why they are so unwilling to do that and that makes me very suspicious of their motives and their tactics.

I raised this point in an e-mail with another member for whom I have the highest respect and was told that anyone that did that would be ripped apart by the more vocal yes proponents on this board. My reaction is so what .. some variation of that is an every day occurence here. I sent an e-mail to someone I am almost certain is a member of the lobbying group. I stated that if he either confirmed or denied his participation in the lobby I would defend him vigorously in whatever way I could from attacks on the board. I never received any reponse to my e-mail.

There have been some very strange things happening in terms of IDCC visibility since the lobbying group was formed. First of all the original PR announcing the formation of the lobbying group went out the day after the best CC this company has ever had. The manner in which it was released made it appear as if it came from IDCC rather than from the lobbying group. It included results from an IHub survey that everyone here recognized was flawed to the point of being highly misleading. Then IDCC suddenly appears on the CFRA radar screen in a PR suggesting there may be some accounting issues at IDCC. This was followed by allegations of a potential previous IDCC ownership conflict for Jim Lurgio that was posted on the board shortly after he announced he was voting yes and encouraged others to do the same. Todays PR in the WSJ was the most bizarre of all.

So I have made several posts that connect all of these events as part of the lobbying group's plan to get prop 2 defeated and then to move on to other objectives in what I believe to be an extensive agenda of shareholder reform formulated by a group of very disgruntled shareholders. I have made it clear that I am very concerned that this may slow the momentum of both the company and institutional ownership, not to mention that it could do irreparable damage in terms of divisevness on this board. I would love to have at least one member of this board to stand up and declare they are also a member of the lobbying group and articulate why my fears are unwarranted. I simply cannot understand why no one will do that and that is probably the most troublesome thing of all.