Replies to post #101748 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[laranger]

DR.

FWIW, most of the regulars on Yahoo believe as you do.

Thanks for a thoughtful message.

[dndodd]

DR,

Excellent post. You have always been a big contribtor to this board.

Thanks,

David

[bushhog]

Dr, not a basher IMO and I happen to agree with you. Very good post as always.

[Dave Davis]

Data: Well reasoned post. FWIW, I agree with you. I have never met these people; I only know them from what I read about them here. But I have never seen how HC really adds value. He is not an engineer or an attorney, etc. so it does not seem to fit that he would lead a company that is so heavily involved in advanced technology and litigation.

I also weigh heavily the opinions of Jim L., Ronny Marchma, yourself, Nasgovitz, etc.

However, for me to vote AGAINST someone, I would like to also at the same time like to vote FOR a replacement. I think it would be better for the company to have a smooth TRANSITION of the top leadership, and not a temporary leadership vaccuum or power struggle that an ouster of the CEO would bring about.

You live in California. I believe the reason why Gray Davis (no relation) was soundly recalled is because voters knew what was on the other side. Namely; Arnold.

My point is that people don't mind voting someone out of office, but it's much better for everybody if there is, at the same time, a compelling alternative.

I believe that our analysts would not mind if HC were gone, but IMO they would prefer to know who was going to replace him prior to voting against him. Perhaps Danny Detail (if he is reading) could comment on this.

In any event, I would not be likely to vote against HC unless I knew who the new COB would be.

JMHO.

[JimLur]

Data, I'm sure there are many others that share your view about HC and will get a chance to express themselves this June.

I hope you or any one else didn't read my post as I didn't want any negative management posts. What I am trying to do is eliminate constant bashing as well as constant cheer leading by the same posters.

[themaude]

Well put Data. I'm on full agreement and will vote accordingly, was trying to figure out how to express what you did so well. Thanks.

Bill

[Danny Detail]

Data .. No reason to delete that post .. It doesn't even remotely approach bashing IMO. It also isn't repetitive .. actually in my memory it is the first time you have weighed in on this subject. It is a thoughtful, balanced and accurate relating of events as you recall them and your related conclusions and opinions that cause you to think that a change of management, particularly with regard to HC, would benefit you as a shareholder. You have also been careful to separate fact from opinion. You do have an opportunity to vote for a change and you should unless something causes you to change your mind between now and then.

I don't know if you have first hand knowledge that Harry can't stand having anyone in the company that isn't a lap dog and has used options, RSUs, etc. as "treats" to get them to act like that, but if you don't that is only your opinion. Not an off the wall one for sure given the facts you have related, but an opinion nonetheless. I have no first hand knowledge whatsoever about Harry so as far as I know he could just as well be the glue that has held the company together through some tough times so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt right now.

I have always wondered about the MG thing. The "he didn't do the job and he got fired" conclusion never rung true with me and still doesn't. My gut told me it was culture clash and it wasn't just with Harry it was the entire management team. I think these guys are tight-knit as hell, see themselves as a team that have dealt with some exceptionally difficult business challenges and no outsider is going to be welcomed by them for some time. I have absolutely nothing factual to back that up with .. it is simply a gut feel. Anyway, my first reason I would not like to see a change at this time is that I don't want to upset the chemistry of the team at a very critical juncture. If they pull this off, they are going to be very highly rewarded and IMO they will be much more willing to bring in others to share the workload and the fruits thereof, ergo less disruption.

The second reason that I don't want a change at this time, at least not one that comes as a result of a very public, and possibly ugly, campaign by individual investors, is my concern for what it might do to our institutional ownership just when we are starting to get some traction with them. These are folks who "dress up their portfolios" at the end of each quarter by selling stocks that have fallen way out of favor and buying ones that are hot. Not a very admirable thing for them to do, but it does give one an insight into their psyche .. i.e. perception ranks right up there with reality. We have just come out of an extended period of very significant corporate scandals, some would suggest that we are still in one, and no institution wants to be holding shares in any company that is even perceived as one that has been raided by the management at the shareholders expense and/or has other significant management and corporate governance issues. While that is not a danger with your post, I submit to you that any institution reading a compilation of Corp's posts would be hard-pressed to conclude otherwise. At the end of the day, the risk (albeit small) is not worth the reward to me, particularly if Corp and his followers are going to lead the charge.

Regards,
Danny

[rmarchma]

Rox re Campagna’s reelection. Thanks for your well thought-out and articulated post on this matter. I certainly do not consider you to be a management basher, but an honest and truthful appraiser of the situation at hand. I consider myself to be likewise, although there are many who think I wrongfully “bash” IDCC’s top leadership. You said:

....“I'm of the opinion that Harry can't stand anyone that won't be a lap dog in his private company, and he's trained his staff to be exactly that...and he'll take care of them from the compensation committee cash register. Hey....if I was home grown in that organization and Harry made sure I had plenty of options and RSUs along with a fat salary, I'd sit up and beg too. Those that question him or try to change things depart. Not healthy IMO.”

Gercenstein did try to change IDCC’s organizational environment created and perpetuated by Harry. Gercenstein tried to make the organization more professional, more communicative, more accountable for results, and more investment-friendly with clearly stated goals contained within a publicly communicated Business Plan to the investment community. He was going to hold the managers accountable for accomplishing the stated plan.

Also Gercenstein desired the role of a true CEO, who was responsible for the operating decisions at IDCC, rather than just being a figurehead and puppet. Gercenstein clashed with Harry over the organizational changes he was trying to make, and was quickly fired in less than one year of being hired. An excerpt from a previous post, with a comment in italics that I was responding to, as follows:

I have talked to Janet Point about Harry's role - he's not there on a day-to-day basis - my impression is that he is a good and active and responsible Chairman of the Board.

Harry does not have to be physically in KOP to call the shots. He can still make extensive use of private and conference telephone calls with IDCC executives. If you were to ask an ex-CEO of IDCC you would get a different story as to the extent of Harry's involvement in the daily affairs and all the important decisions of IDCC than what Janet might indicate. And all she really indicated to you was that Harry was not physically present at KOP on a daily basis, which is true.

I think Harry does pull the strings like a puppeteer to a certain extent. An ex-CEO has said that Harry has the tendency to "micro-manage" the organization and would sometimes call him ten times a day. He also said that "Howard was Harry's puppet", and that "the board of directors was virtually non-functioning, except for Clontz". An ex-CEO's assessment may be somewhat tainted and exaggerated, but might contain some degree of truth.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=703066

[loophole73]

Data

Excellent post!!!!!!!!!!

BULLETIN, FWIW, I believe HC agrees with you.

Any shareholder of IDCC present at the time of the Mot decision realized that a knock out punch had been delivered by a jury and a judge in Delaware. We had lost our foundational patent claims on our home soil. Sure we had the appeals road, but findings of no infringement were devastating and not even Dr. DeBakey would be willingly attempt the repair of the heart and soul of this company.

Nobody, savy in the the industry, wanted to take over the reins of this former racehorse with 3 broken legs. HC stepped up to the plate and took over. He made a small dollar investment and a large time deposit in an effort to revive a dream that many of us today still have going into the final hours of the 2g saga.

I believe that HC is ready to walk away and his track record so indicates. He has declared himself as an outside director and we all know he could declare otherwise. He has done this in the face of the new institutional rule and he knows his compensation figure for an outside director sticks out like a sore thumb.

As far as taking care of his underlings, there is not one of us on this board that would not reward loyalty in the position HC found himself in when he took over. He knew he had a long term fix and a short stack to operate. When I first started out, I hired an old investigator that technology soon replaced as far as efficiency is concerned. However, he was very instrumental in the success of my breakthrough case. He had been loyal and it was iffy whether he would get paid in the early days when my success at poker determined whether or not the bank account would support the outstanding checks written thereon. I kept him on board until he decided to fish for fun because he was there when others would not have been. I faded a lot of criticism inn later years when he shared in the bonuses, but I did the right thing as far as I am concerned.

I understand your post completely, but I view it differently. I will vote for HC this time around because I believe it is the right thing to do. I believe he also will do the right thing and exit with pride. I just do not believe it is right to publicly oust the only guy willing to step up to the plate in the darkest hours of the company when literally nobody had even the slightest desire to do so. I realize that my beliefs in fair treatment are outmoded and the popular thing to do is blast the old traditions and institutions publicly. Our press has taught us how to take just the negative and completely ignore the positive when dealing with people who have made a difference in an endeavor. A vote to withhold HC at this time in the history of this company is simply unfair and misleading as to his contributions made in keeping her alive. IDCC was pronounced dead on the operating table in Wilmington Delaware many years ago and the position it finds itself in today is largely due to the efforts of HC and those who stuck with him.

MO
loop

[e5oo]

i can listen to valid, well reasoned criticism all day. it's your opinion and you made a good arguement. thanks

[Learning2vest]

FWIW....gonna vote both of my IDCC shares "FOR" Harry and the other directors based on the following facts and opinions:

1) Harry has been successful in defending IPR in a lawsuit that was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. All he had to work with in THAT legal initiative was a shade of green described as "GreenGold" in his company trade mark. He hired top gun legal counsel to represent him in that initiative and he stayed the course until he got everything he felt he was due.

I LIKE that set of facts a whole lot in the guy calling the shots at InterDigital right now, and do not want to see anybody else BUT Harry standing toe-to-toe with the likes of Nokia until the last shot has been fired.

2) Harry built a personal fortune the "old fashioned way" in another tough industry before he became involved with InterDigital, i.e., he earned it! I like that a lot in a guy who has to stand firm against the likes of Nokia and Motorola until they agree to pay all that InterDigital has coming. It takes somebody with a steel backbone to stay the course when much bigger firms make offers that are well below what you think is fair and threaten "Take this, or get ready to fight ALL of us!".

3) My biggest worry with IDCC is seeing it get bought out before the market has all the facts it needs to value it fully. The firm has an adequate defense against hostile takeovers, but we need to have a management willing to use it or it's worthless. I'm thinking buyout players would have a mighty tough time finding a way to entice our Harry into going along with their plans at anything less than his full estimated valuation of the firm going forward. Why would Harry be interesting in accepting anything less just to get a big title, salary, and jetset perks in somebody else's firm?

No doubt that there are some more glamorous "whiz kids" and plenty of big name "hotshots" that are willing to take Harry's seat as Chairman at InterDigital. This IDCC investor does not want to risk having a smooth talking role model from central casting take over and then cave in to licensing rates way lower than we deserve. Not at this point.

This investor wants a guy sitting behind those IDCC gunsights who knows how to stay focused and keep shooting until the Nokia, Samsung, and Motorola beasts have been put down and rolled over. Harry is my guy to get what we have coming from those bully pikers.

Quick take on the other mgmt changes you questioned in the ref post;

IMO Lomp was a very capable engineer, but his ego had him demanding to be CEO at a time when something other than technical expertise was needed. He quit to be CEO of his own firm and is now back to being a very capable lead engineer at another firm. No fault there on anybody IMO.

Guessing that Papenella was a product guy hired to manage the B-CDMA product program. Maybe when that program proved to be commercially unworkable there was no other product horse for him to ride at InterDigital.

Let's take a look at how much things changed from the time Gercenstein was hired until he departed from the CEO position. He was hired about the time Nokia settled up on paying for 2G sales through 2002 and also tapped InterDigital to be their "development partner" on WTDD. Things looked rosy. Gercenstein had great credentials and certainly appeared to have the "right stuff" to be a great CEO at an InterDigital operating in partnership with Nokia.

Things changed. Nokia's white hat fell off and exposed big nasty horns pointed right at InterDigital's gut. When that happened the IDCC CEO role switched from corporate cheerleader to battle commander vs Nokia(and others). IMO colorful pitch men who "shoot from the hip" like we saw Gercenstein doing in his CNBC appearance are not likely to be the deep thinking detail type needed to lead an extended legal battle. From that point of view "exit Gercenstein/enter Goldberg" appeared to make perfect sense.














rthe timing of his appointment and departureNokia had just settled up with InterDigital to be their "development partner" Guessing he was hired

[STINVESTOR]

Data_Rox:
Clear, concise and cogent!!!!! Absolutely brilliant.

I have voted against COB's reelection for at least the last two
terms. Will do so again this term.
STINVESTOR

[alalud]

Great historical perspective and as already previously stated, clear, concise and cogent. Excellent closing argument for the jury to review. I also note that few, if any, see this post as "bashing". Thanks for your efforts.