Replies to post #29703 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Danny Detail]

Corp-buyer .. Are you making or refuting my point that there is no need or rationale for anyone here to be involved in the formation of a group to lobby the institutions for a "no" vote on #2? As a result of their sophisticated investor status and extensive DD they are perfectly capable of deciding on how they should vote without any advice from any of us. I'm not at all concerned that the lobby will sway some institution to change their vote from what they otherwise would have made as a result of their own DD.

As you pointed out in stating that this board has sufficient votes to defeat prop 2, there is still very significant individual ownership of IDCC. The institutions recognize that with the advent of internet stock message boards the power for individual investors to potentially act more or less as a single block has increased dramatically, whether it is in their buy, sell and hold decisions or in shareholder activism activities. Now as we can certainly attest on this board, individual investors have as yet been unsuccessful in harnassing that power for their common good. But that doesn't mean it won't happen some day and the motivation to do so is certainly there for the individual investors after the damage they suffered from the rampant abuses of the late 1990s. In summary, these are not your father's individual investors and the institutions know it. After all, many of them were made to look incompetent when their returns were paltry in the late 1990s compared to those produced by the momentum players that dominated the message boards during that time.

IDCC is at a critical point in terms of our institutional ownership. Why give them any reason, no matter how small, to conclude that the lobby is indicative of a very disgruntled, large and unified (85% vs 15%) individual investor group that could be a thorn in management's side for some time to come. Can you assure me that the lobby won't give that impression to the institutions, if any, with whom they get an audience? Can you further assure me that no institution that gets that impression will not put in their buy, sell and hold decisions? Can you articulate for me the potential rewards from lobbying the institutions to offset the possible risks I and others see of doing so? TIA

[jmspaesq]

Corp:The Comps You Provided Showed a 24% 'overhang' For Tech Companies if you're talkiing about that PPT presentation you emailed me.

How do you figure that IDCC is way above that w prop 2?

You chose a 10% figure. That applied to communications companies. Since the term is undefined and there is a category for tech, I believe the tech comp is probably more apt as a comparison to IDCC since communications companies are probably more like AOL/Time Warner etc or a Sprint etc NOT a communications technology developer.

Also: your 'dilution' analysis consistently overstates dilution by failing to account for revenues produced by options exercise; by assuming that all options granted will be exercised; and by assuming a static price for the stock and no growth which has to be wrong since if it was right no options granted at current FMV would ever be exercised.

Yet you persist in citing the same overblown figures.

So I disagree with your assumptions and your math and your conclusions.

Also: If you are correct that the analytical framework you provide below results in a NO vote across the board from the institutions which own (approximately) 1/3 of this company's stock currently, then of the remaining 66%, only 25% of those or a total of 17% of individual shareholders, need to vote NO in order for the NO vote to win.

Even if you assume that 6.2% of the shares are owned by management/BOD and they all vote YES, that still leaves a lot of individual shareholders only a few of whom need to vote NO in order for NO to prevail. That still means only about 1 in 4 remaining shares.

So what are you so worried about? Given that, I'd think the vote was in the bag for the NOs.

Further, given your analysis, it shouldn't be hard to convince 1 in 4 individual shares that their best interest requires a NO vote.

Which makes one wonder, why the incessant drum beat?

BTW: thanks for dropping your declaration at the end of EVERY post that you're voting NO and urge all others to do the same. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is going to 'get it' already has.

PS: thank goodness this will all be over pretty soon. We'll have to see what if any other subjects interest you after the ASM!