JimLur, I empathise with your sentiment. However, I think you might agree that asking those questions, although may send a message, won't get you any meaningful response.
Your questions:
1. For example what was the reason the company halted trading recently? Every investor I know thought the reason why was Apple changed their agreement . Merritt blew that away with his comments at the ASM.
My answer: The change from the fixed fee licencee to a per unit required IDCC to reduce guidance by $2million. They could have easily worded it so that all investors could deduce that it was
not Apple. But, with their clever wording, and also by throwing in the trading halt, they were able to make investors believe that there was a chance that it could be Apple. IMO, it is one way to try to garner continued interest or intrigue with the company. BUT, obviously they would never admit that.
2. I would question why the BOD and employees every chance they get they execute the options or RSU’s and retain none?
My Answer: Quite simply, in their view, they may have better places to invest their money and from their perspective do not see IDCC as compelling as we do, considering the risks/obstacles involved. Again, you will not get anyone from the board to speak candidly about this.
3. Merritt has made numerous presentations stating that IDCC has 50% of the 3-G market licensed and he also used that comment at the ASM stating that was as of 2010. Why can’t he be honest and tell the truth and say because LG is not licensed we are now down to 42 %.
My Answer: Because Merritt is trying to put IDCC in the best light possible. 50% sounds better than 42%, especially given that 42% reveals that the percentage is declining.
4. He also IMO miss led the financial markets with his double –double as if this was true and you board members believed his message might have held on to some of your options?
My Answer: The double-double scenario is an absolute best case scenario. It is a way to market the potential of IDCC. Perhaps a potential acquirer might view this as an opportunity. But, does the BOD or Bill Merritt view this as realistic? As a stand alone company, and based on history, I doubt that they view it as realistic any time soon. Obviously, if the BOD or Merritt did view the double-double as achievable any time soon, they would hold onto more of their shares and would likely buy on the open market. But they would never tell you this.
The bottom line IMO is that management and the BOD are very aware of how extremely difficult it is to secure favorable license agreements with the larger infringers. It takes years and is mired in uncertainty. CAFC is a big uncertainty that many would not choose to gamble on.
I think they are trying to find ways to facilitate favorable license agreements without resorting to litigation, but it is proving to be extremely difficult. I don't know, but I am hoping for a favorable CAFC, and also hoping that the NORTEL auction REALLY serves to place a favorable value on IDCC. Those are catalysts that have the potential to attract acquirers/partners.
I am hoping that those are the two catalysts that management is waiting to get past before they start executing. I don't have a lot of confidence in Bill Merritt, but he said they are being patient, waiting for the right opportunity to get favorable agreements. I hope that CAFC and NORTEL are what they are waiting for, otherwise I have no idea what else it would take for them to execute.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
