Replies to post #101772 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[mschere]

I think I will give my proxy to the 325 current employees/stockholders of IDCC..They may have great insight as to who is most suited to Direct the Company for the best interest of them and their Families..

[laranger]

Loop.

Is it likely that Harry would "retire" if he was re-elected?

Although he was once a "savior", he's been riding the same train for the 10 years since the Motorla fiasco, and recovered his investment a thousand times over.

If he was going to leave, wouldn't you think he would have made an announcement?

[glennymo]

i am with you loophole...... it is my understanding that it came down to goldberg or gercenstein. easy decision. i believe an iron fist is needed when you are in survival mode. i have bashed harry thru the years and now i am willing to eat crow.
unlike others on this board, i came to realize i did not know squat really about the dealings of this company or the reasons they did what they did. i had never even heard of HTC before we signed them but i believe they will become a huge contributor to our bottom line. just an example of how little i knew. i am voting for harry as a thank you for breathing life into this road kill and getting us to a threshold of greatness and as an apology for my dumbass remarks.

[Danny Detail]

Loop .. I realize that my beliefs in fair treatment are outmoded and the popular thing to do is blast the old traditions and institutions publicly.

Excellent post yourself. Count me among the outmoded, too BUT I do think some of the old traditions are making a comeback .. The Red Sox and the Patriots are terrific examples of what teamwork can produce and that has got the attention of lots of folks, and not just in sports.

Regards,
Danny

[tucker]

Loop, I am going to vote against HC, if I get my proxies. It has been my opinion for some time that MG was a good hire, knew the business and was moving the company in the right direction. He was fired and the stockholders were never really told why. I was disappointed in the way the company has handled options and compensation for management. Of course, I still have faith in the company in spite of the past and am hopeful that we all will be rewarded.
I still say that Judge Lynn did not have jurisdiction of the Nokia dust up, but all of this is just my opinion and the courts can deal you a bad hand when you think that you have won!
As for Loop and Data Rox. Loop is my friend and one outstanding Lawyer. I have met Data and he is one smart cookie. As a result I read closely anything that the 2 gentlemen say because it is my opinion they are people who know their subjects! Tucker

[rmarchma]

Loop to clarify the facts from the fiction. Your comments in bold as follows:

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.

Things were just not that bleak following the Motorola decision in early 1995 as you are trying to make it out to be. Matter of fact, the Motorola decision eliminated some uncertainity, and actually boosted IDCC's licensing efforts and revenues. From my Revenue by Years document as follows:

1995 = Siemens = $13.6m in 1995 from a total $20m contract
Mitsubishi = $20m
NEC = $27m
Sanyo, Hitachi/Kokysai, PCSI = $7.1m (can not break out this total between individual companies)

1996 = Samsung = $23m in 1996 from a total contract of $35m
Siemens = $ 5m

Both Siemens and Samsung entered into strategic partnerships with IDCC to develop BCDMA after Motorola, with Siemens in 1995 and Samsung in 1996. Also Mitisubish and NEC initially licensed with IDCC for rather significant upfront amounts, shortly after the Motorola decision in 1995. Sanyo and Hitachi also initially licensed with IDCC in 1995 following Motorola.

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.

Harry made his infamous loan to IDCC in May 1994, before the Motorola trial, just after he first became director in April 2004. Thus he did not infuse the company with capital following the Motorola debacle. BTW Harry's loan was just over $100,000, the Burns loaned twice as much as Harry, and everyone was repaid within about 9 months.

Rather than accepting interest of a couple of thousand dollars on the loan, Harry elected to receive 15,000 stock options in lieu of the interest, and at a very low strike price. These loans did not save the company from finacial ruin as some like to say, because Matsushita initially licensed with IDCC in 1994 for $20m and Qualcomm settled for $5.5m also in 1994. Some other unnamed company also licensed in 1994 for $3m.

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.

Harry became director in 1994. However he did not become Chairman of the Board until 1997, if memory serves me correctly. Therefore, he was not the one who single-handedly led us out from the darkness of Motorola.

(Note: I accidently hit the send button on this post before I finished the post. I might have more to come in my reply to Loop's post)

[Hardball]

Yes but What Has He done for US Lately?

All of the taking over from MOT stuff is in the past.

As an investor I feel no sentimental attachment nor loyalty to him.

I have to judge him on the here and now.

I'm concerned about the ERICY deal. I think we settled cheap and with the promise of things to come that didn't materialize.

Obviously the "partnership" with NOK has been a big bust for us (I mean our 3G "partner").

I haven't made up my mind but so far as I'm concerned he needs to show us the money and I'm STILL waiting.

(That said I don't think my vote will make any difference whatsover) (and if anything I tend to vote FOR whoever the company puts up--my view is that if I don't have faith in the company I shouldn't be invested in it--I think corporate democracy is a big myth--it isn't me or the total investment of this board that makes a difference, it is the institutional investors who make the difference).