Replies to post #31936 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[fordiamonds]

OT. witchhollow, could you provide examples of the following statemnt:

In the past 30 days, we have had posters trying to discredit Jim and Danny on a personal basis on behalf of their vendetta against IDCC's management. That is where the line was crossed, barrister!! You probably know it, but can't disclose it due to the "oath" you have taken. That line was not drawn by me.

Don't mean to rehash, but I for one have no clue what you are talking about.

[loophole73]

Ken

You forgot to add RMarchma to Jim and DannyD about going to IDCC in the good ole days. The company has had every opportunity to respond to the various boards that Jim has hosted and they have chosen to not do so.

Ken, if you seriously believe that anyone who posts on this board can stop Mr. Espy from doing whatever he is doing, then you can say that poster has drawn a line in the sand. I do not believe that he even posts on this board. So far, he apparently believes that he is trying to help the company and I have seen nothing to indicate he has harmed it. He may be more aggressive than I would prefer, but as long as he follows the law, we should not be creating a civil war on this board. If he steps outside the law, then IDCC will need to deal with him. If he and HC are talking as reported, then I do not see a problem in the future.

Regarding DannyD, he and I have a disagreement concerning the reaction of institutions to shareholders exercising their rights under the laws of this country. He had me so scared that I almost sold 1/2 of my position. I did not and remain long as I always Have, but thanks for asking. I have posted the safeguards that exist which will prevent shareholders from trying to run the company. I believe in the process and if a shareholder is able to successfully get a resolution before the other shareholders for a vote, then so be it because he/she has worked very hard to accomplish the task. I am not going to pre-judge the content of any resolution until I see the subject matter. I certainly would not put forth the effort, but if I believe that another has presented something that is good for the company and the shareholders, then I may vote for it. If I think it does not help the company and the shareholders, I will vote it down. You must also remember that the resolutions are typically non binding. If it involves dilution limits, the institutions will be interested. Any other matters will not be considered by the institutions. The institutions are interested in 2 things. The first is the successful execution of an income producing business plan and the second is the ability of the company to provide prompt and accurate guidance regarding projections offered earlier by the company. Sorry, there is a third and that is full and accurate accounting of business operations.

I agree with DD that HC is earning too much as a director, but the shareholders did not create this disparity. HC is a big boy and is certainly in a no lose situation. Advancing that small amount of money was a nice gesture, but he has been well rewarded for his effort. This company is past start up and it now should perform accordingly.

Finally, I do not make snide remarks about your profession and there is no reason to bring mine into your grudge. My profession did not purchase shares of stock in IDCC. I, as an individual, made the purchases. If you have a problem with lawyers, then that is fine, but I do not understand your reference to an "oath".

MO
loop