"IDCC needs to do a better job in explaining what the program is about , how it operates, and how it is accounted for" - ABSOLUTELY.
If the intent is a new "compensation program" then that to me means PAY for PERFORMANCE (i.e. past performance). That is what "compensation" means.
If the objective is "to attract, motivate and retain employees", then that is very different from, and NOT the same as, "compensation". Of course, fair (not excessive) compensation is appropriate to "attract" capable candidates.
If the intent is to "Ensures alignment with market/industry practices and shareholder interests" then IMO it is counterproductive and was also ill timed.
I note that the LT-C-P was introduced when the company was not competing heavily for management talent (top 100 folks) and the operating results were restrained by the Nok arbitration and other issues, so it seems that the LTCP was not necessary to meet any of the stated objectives for it.
In any case, IMO for this plan to be LEGITIMATE, it should have at least very public and very aggressive SHAREHOLDER ALIGNED PERFORMANCE GOALS e.g. tied to profitability, new licenses, etc. AND pehaps some shareholder approved caps BEFORE we incur payouts of $25M, and possibly much more, for just 2004-2005.
I agree with you 100% that shareholders DESERVE full and complete disclosure and shareholder aligned goals for the new LTCP (as well as all other bonus and compensation plans).
Unfortunately, it is becoming clear, contrary to my sincere hope, that our industry experienced newest Directors are apparently NOT interested or not ABLE to correct such corporate governance deficiencies at IDCC. I will just leave it at that for now.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
