Replies to post #108209 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[bulldzr]

Corp... Who is feeding you this crap? "Bancorp" my arse, You don't know anymore about some "bancorp" preceeding than I know about knitting socks.

The "psj" was by definition "partial" wasn't it??? ... and was vacated by joint agreement of the parties. What do you know about the details of this? Again, who is feeding you this crap? Your calling it "adverse, very damaging" to IDCC is disengenous at the least, and what I would call bulschitt because you don't know about it... again... Who Is Feeding You This Crap? In spite of this so called "adverse, very damaging" legal action Ericy did settle with IDCC, didn't they? Nothing about the "reinstatement" of these psj's means squat relative to the NOK arb. as far as you and I know...Again... Who Is Feeding You This Crap?

Why do you continue to try to mislead, propagandize, and use total conjecture just to further your crusade against Harry? I guess we should all thank our lucky stars that at least Howard and Rip are gone... thereby eliminating two more targets for your perpetual target shooting and scorched earth policy toward IDCC management on this board. Will you be satisfied if you get rid of Harry? Will you take credit for it like you did last time with the defeated options proxy at the previous ASM? Who will be next in your gunsights? Merritt? Bogliano? Jan Point? Hell, why not just get rid of all of them?

I have tried to keep an open mind... have tried to be tolerant of your obviously obsessive behavior on these boards because you are so deviously polite. I must say you are one cool customer when under attack...you keep your cool when called out, you take criticism like water off a duck's back. You just keep puking out your agenda. Again,... "Who is feeding you this crap?" You don't know shit about "Bancorp"... who fed you that?

This last post of yours has finally made clear to me what many here have seen for months, even since your posts leading up to the last ASM. I know you have many here that agree with your views, or at least some of your views. Of course you have Ronnie the "Energizer Bunny" shareholder activist on your side... he would agree with anything to get rid of Harry (Where does it stop ronnie?... I look forward to the day when you return as the old rmarchma, finding and sharing gems re IDCC and trying to make this a better place).

And you even have Data and Ed what's his name "Fiat" on your side... but at least Data has made solid, positive contibutions to this board, is a good and loyal "friend" to many, and has his own reasons which he has pointed out quite clearly and openly...(while good ol' Eduardo 'Maserati' just likes to stir shit and laugh about us anyway...I have to admit... ol' Alfa-edgar-Romeo is starting to grow on me, LOL)... Many here will probably vote to withhold re Harry C, and that is what a proxy is for, but I don't hear them spreading lies and half-truths trying to further their point of view.

Again... "Who Is Feeding You This Crap?" I think you are a liar... You are twisting the truth and trying to mislead people in furtherance of your and someone else's agenda. I don't think I am being paranoid; I think it is obvious... who is feeding you this crap?"

Later and Best, bulldzr

[Desert dweller]

Corp, you said the following in 2 different posts that I wanted to reply to in one post:


"More specifically, while I am very impressed by F&J's Appeal briefs and their Motion to Dismiss Nok's 3G patent litigation, I believe F&J and IDCC negligently BUNGLED the Ericy settlement by not very easily and clearly insulating it from the principles in Bancorp, which Nok and Judge Lynn used to reinstate the VERY ADVERSE PSJs against many of our MOST VALUABLE 2G patent claims (much to the surprise of IDCC and F&J, apparently).


Also, if the Appeal goes against IDCC, then our entire 2G CURRENT REVENUE BASE may be at grave risk due to this SEVERE DAMAGE to our most valuable key 2G IPR assets (7 of 11 key patent claims). Incidentally, our "remaining" 2G key claims are now at risk in the UK.

So, the GRAVE RISK to IDCC caused by this STUPID LEGAL ERROR followed up by our top leadership's EXTREME MANAGEMENT ERROR in not handling Nok effectively over 2 years ago cannot be overstated."

How much revenue is at grave risk? Ericy signed an agreement knowing full well what the PSJ's meant and they decided to sign anyway. They also paid a non refundable prepayment that covers their sales through the end of their contract period. Therefore NO ERICY money is at risk.

Now on to NEC. They are our largest paying customer and they are PAID UP with respect to 2g. Other than the amortization of the 2g arbitration settlement, ALL of their revenue is coming from 3g. The amortization doesn't provide cash so it is meaningless to me. This will also be fully amortized very soon if not already done so. Therefore, no money at risk here.

Toshiba, same thing as NEC, paid up with respect to 2g, again no money at risk.

Sanyo, not material and I am not sure where we stand on 2g and really don't care since 3g is where the money is going to be in the future from them.

Sharp is our 2nd largest customer. I do believe that a portion of their revenue is coming from 2g but I believe that most of the revenue is coming from 3g. Their 2g revenue is coming from a dying technology, PHS and PDC, I believe.

So while you want to harp on how this is such a grave error to our future, can you please explain what the financial impact is going to be without even knowing what the legal strategy was of F&J and IDCC AND ERICY? You really don't know squat about their strategy and from your vantage point all you see is negativity. I believe that you are totally incorrect in your impressions about how this is playing out.

You and the rest of us are not privy to the negotiations, the private meetings and everything else that went on in the Ericy trial and settlement but you continue to post as if your opinion is the only real possibility. Like I said in a previous post, if I believed only half of what you said, I would have sold a long time ago and I continue to wonder how you stay invested considering your beliefs.

BTW I did vote to support your proposal in the annual elections because I believe that all representatives of a company should be subject to annual reviews. The BOD should not be any different IMO.