To Mr Campagna: "with non-executive employees as the primary focus". Shareholders are not fooled by this misleading statement. You suggest that "non-executive employees" are the primary focus since they get about 2/3 of the options. What you fail to reflect is that the "non-executive employees" number about 300 (getting 2/3 of grants) and the executives number about 15 (getting 1/3 of grants). On a per employee basis, you have a ratio of 10 to 1 in favor of executives over "non-executives".
A recent example that greatly troubles shareholders is that recently IDCC was granted 8 new patents, resulting in 8 x 2,000 = 16,000 ISO options for the inventors. Bravo, great use of ISO options.
Now, compare those eight inventions and resulting 16,000 ISO shares to the recent new controller, who received 17,500 options just for walking in the door, i.e. he received more than all 8 inventors. The controller has invented NOTHING and CONTRIBUTED NOTHING to IDCC and his grant occurred at a time when he and many other excellent controller candidates would have taken this job with NO options.
As a shareholder, I am all in favor of rewarding inventors for confirmed contributions such as issued patents. And, I am strongly opposed to rewarding 1 new controller upon joining the company MORE ISO than 8 inventors received after 8 confirmed inventions that may actually generate significant revenues for the company.
So, when you say "the Board will consider all avenues to meet our goals" I truly hope you mean you will consider using the 5.6M shares remaining in the ISO pool for maximum effectiveness and duration.
The shareholders have you sent you and the BoD a clear message that we want you to use ISO sparingly and thoughtfully, for maximum effectiveness and duration, and to avoid the ISO abuses and excesses we have witnessed in the past.
Regards,
Corp_Buyer
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
