News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Danny Detail

08/18/06 12:46 PM

#165203 RE: sonic22 #165202

Sonic22 .. However I do think IDCC mgmt should provide those goals on what would entail them 3 for 1 RSU's in Jan 2008.

It sure would be nice from a DD standpoint but I would imagine that they could not be published with any degree of specificity without disclosing confidential information from a competitive standpoint. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you, but I am definitely a glass is half-full guy. My interpretation of this change is that the performance hurdles were raised significantly, not lowered or kept the same. This was accompanied by both a "carrot" (3 for 1 if more than 150% of goal met) and a "stick" (nothing if less than 80% of goal met) which are important elements in any successful incentive compensation plan.

I can certainly understand why some could see this as just more compensation for less effort. But it is more likely IMO that it is a change whose purpose is to more closely align compensation with performance.

Regards,
Danny
icon url

Corp_Buyer

08/18/06 2:03 PM

#165213 RE: sonic22 #165202

"..IDCC mgmt should provide those goals on what would entail them 3 for 1 RSU's in Jan 2008" - absolutely correct.

MO,
Corp_Buyer
icon url

Corp_Buyer

08/18/06 2:16 PM

#165215 RE: sonic22 #165202

The shareholders should also be informed as to the duration of the no infringement law suit standoff that IDCC gave to Nok.

And, if Sam wins a right to the same deal in their current arbitration, then 2 industry leaders may be immune from 3G litigation by IDCC, and therefore cannot be expected to sign 3G licenses that will produce any 3G revenues for IDCC. Such a scenario would seem to be materially very different than the reasonable and current expectations of the analyst and investor community currently i.e. no such block so as to completely prevent signing new 3G licenses with any of the remaining top prospects.

If the no infringement lawsuit giveaway period has already expired, then why not disclose that fact? My inference is that the no lawsuit agreement may still be in effect at this time, but for how much longer? Does this issue relate in any way to the new bonus scheme, targets, and 2008 timeframe?

IDCC's complete and utter failure to disclose this vital and IMO material information to shareholders, and also the specific targets that will trigger substantially increased compensation, are more than a little disturbing.

MO,
Corp_Buyer