Replies to post #29699 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[jmspaesq]

Danny:So You're to Blame for the Rain?

Well you're still a good guy and at least we aren't having another drought this year.

I'm not so sure that I agree that the folks behind the PR wanted the price of IDCC to go up and that they were motivated by their sincere belief that a NO vote is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders?

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist but I do wonder if the 'unintended consequences' aren't exactly what they intended and hoped for?

I've said before that in this day and age where people are so highly sensitized to even the rumored hint of any scandal, the PR was bound to stir up trouble--and sometimes it is pretty darned hard to recover from the stigma of a rumored hint of scandal and the stigma will continue to hang over a stock like a cloud. Often people assume that where's there's smoke or even the rumor of it, that there must be fire and/or that it isn't worth risking it. And the company can't or won't even try to prove a negative--there's no scandal at all.

I'm not sure that these 'shareholder activists' didn't intend to hurt the company. At the very least, if they wanted to help, I wonder if they thought things through.

The biggest reason for my suspicion is, once again, how they went about it.

I don't think for a second that many of those who have stated that they will vote NO have anything but good intentions and are doing so for what they think are the best of reasons to help the company and the shareholders. In other words, I don't automatically equate a NO vote with shorts by any means.

But I do wonder about the folks behind the PR. Their modus operandi suggests that they may have a hidden agenda and that their intentions might not be what they might initially appear and might not be what they say their intentions are.

It is their own actions that cast this doubt NOT their position on prop 2.

So I agree with your well stated views. I disagree that you wrote an unclear post earlier--I followed you perfectly well. And I agree completely with your stated concerns about even well intentioned shareholder activism.

I'm just not sure that I agree that the intentions of those behind the PR were so pure.

joel

[fordiamonds]

Danny Detail, thank you for the clarification. I apologize if it seems as though I am hanging on every word, but you are (for better or for worse) included in the group of posters whose posts I try to read very carefully.

PS, My grill is being returned to the garage.