Danny, what I am saying is that on the options issue, measure #2, IMO, in general, the institutions, based on their sophistication and voting methodology, will AGREE with the "NO" vote camp.
IMO, therefore, the institutions are a reliable "no" vote on measure #2, but they only have about 30% of the votes. Therefore, as I have said before, the institutions are relying on us individual shareholders, who have about 60% of the votes, to JOIN them in defeating measure #2. That is how I see it.
Accordingly, IMO, until institutions control more votes in IDCC, they must and do in fact WELCOME shareholder activism at IDCC, ESPECIALLY if it helps them e.g. defeat measure #2.
So, where I disagree with you, is that I don't think ALL shareholder activism will be viewed as a negative or a concern for the institutional owners of our beloved IDCC. Again, I note that IDCC went up significantly right AFTER the DEF-14A was filed requesting more “yes’ votes.
While I believe your heart is in the right place, I think your fervent opposition to ALL shareholder activism (as being a negative for institutions), is not fitting, at least not with respect to measure #2.
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
