Corp:I Reviewed the PPT Presentation And IMHO It Doesn't Support Your (ongoing and oft repeated and by now tiresome) argument.
As I said and you have't responded to: the 24% figure applied to 'tech' compensation is much closer to what is going on at IDCC when one employs a realistic dilution analysis (as opposed to the hyperbolic one you persist in using).
You cite a 10% figure from there that you consider reasonable. However, though what a 'communications' company as opposed to a 'tech' company is remains undefined in the PPT presentation, I think it is pretty clear that 'communications' doesn't refer to the technology side of communications but either the service provider side or the more broadly defined media/communications companies like Sprint on the one hand and AOL/Time Warner on the other.
You found a figure you like-one that suits your hypothesis--and you're sticking with it. Fine.
As far as I'm concerned that figure is misleading and inapposite--meaning inapplicable--to IDCC.
Similary your 40% dilution figure is misleading and inaccurate and depends on obviously flawed assumptions in your analysis.
So I don't find the figure YOU cite as a fair comparison to be fair at all. Nor do I find your 40% even close to painting an accurate picture.
So the firm giving the presentation might be 'reputable' (I have no way of knowing their reputation) but your miscitation of the figures to suit your own predetermined hypothesis is IMHO less than credible and persuasive.
Haven't the PETA people gotten there yet? All this dead horse beating is almost as bad as what happened to the horse in the Godfather (the original). And so far in all of your posts on prop 2 (do you post on ANY other subject) you're only making offers that I find it easy to refuse. <G>
joel
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
