Replies to post #106917 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[JimLur]

Ron, I know the SEC docs don't state that and that comment has nothing to do with the loan. Those warrants that Burns and Campagna got could well have been worthless. I think if the money could have been borrowed from a lending institution the company would have went that route. If you think about it if a company can't borrow from a lending institution they must be in terrible financial shape. Anyone who would lend money to a comapny in that shape should be given good compensation.

They also refused to take the interest due on the loan but nobody mentions that.

[Danny Detail]

Ron .. Has HARRY’s contributions to IDCC really been worth this much and much more than anyone else, or is his compensation clearly excessive in relation to his contributions? I’ll let you be the judge of that.

I prefer that the BOD be the judge of that as well as HC's future at IDCC just as they decided, in a very hands on manner, that the top leadership needed to be changed in order for long term shareholder value to be maximized. With all the debates that have occupied this board 24/7 for at least a month, there appears to be little if any disagreement that this action by the BOD was a very positive one for long term shareholders. Can you present a scenario under which the shareholders on this board could have accomplished a management change of this magnitude this quickly with a minimum of disruption internally and externally? As I've stated before, we couldn't get a consensus on this board on how to spell "cat" if they spotted us the "c" and the "a."

You can legitimately claim (whether true or not) that the the BOD merely listened to the criticisms you and others have been making of management for over two years. BUT the operative word in that sentence is "listened." Absent that I really don't see how anything posted here could have any tangible positive effect on the running of the company. Do you?

WM indicated that this transition has been in the works for sometime. I am particularly pleased to hear that because it indicates to me that this move was part of a carefully thought out plan and was not a knee jerk reaction to insider sales, company politics, NOK negotiations, etc. It is inconceivable to me that the BOD would not have addressed HC's future in that plan.

You, Corp and others are now implying that this very pro-active BOD that made such a good decision involving WM, HG and RT will be incapable of doing the same with HC without your ever-vigilant guidance. Moreover, you have clearly signaled that you lack of confidence in this BOD by recommending that all Directors be simultaneously subjected to annual re-elections going forward. Yet, all of you have stated strongly on several occasions that you have no intention of selling your stock in a company that needs such a high level of individual shareholder oversight, activism and even intervention. That made no sense to me before the BOD showed its colors so it makes no sense squared now that they have.

The company is in good hands now. Let them do their work. I sure wish you would start work on another "Compelling Reasons to buy IDCC" piece rather than continuing to post compelling reasons to sell.

Regards,
Danny