rmarchma:"This policy just reeks of cronyism, and is not ethical IMO."
Come on ronnie, name me one biz that doesn't do it. It is even done in School System & Gov. Have you taken a look at the "cronyism" in all School System.
Ron: I agree that Mr. Campagna, is excessively compensated as an "independent" director. However, your statement that outside directors compensation "is way above normal" , especially when you compare it with Qualcomm, may not be factual.
According to Qualcomm's latest proxy statement Qualcomm's independent directors receive the following cash compensation:
$25,000 Annual retainer $ 2,000 Each Board meeting attended* $ 1,500 Each Board committee meeting attended** $ 5,000 Each committee chairperson (except Audit) $10,000 Audit committee chairperson
* During FY 2004 there were 8 Board meetings ** There are five committes. During Fy 2004, the number of times each committee met ranged from 5 - 10. Since Board members serve on multiple committees, they would receive multiple compensation
Based on the above, I would say that Qualcomm's cash compensation for independent directors was comparable and probably exceeded IDCC's. The main difference between the two companies is in regard to non-cash compensation. In contrast to IDCC's new policy of an annual grant of 4,000 RSUs, Qualcomms policy is to award 10,000 options at the time of the annual meeting (new directors receive 20,000 options at time of joining). I don't want to get into the debate about how options should be valued; but according to your example of IDCC's Dec 03 rsu/option grants, the 10,000 QCOM options would be much more valuable than the 4,000 IDCC RSUs.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
