Loop:IF HC had been withheld I don't think there's be any sell off!
In fact, IF he had been withheld, that would reflect a strong sentiment that such a change would be GOOD for the company and I think that rather than a sell off, we'd see a share increase!
Also: As to your posts on "continuity" well, it ain't all it is cracked up to be. At least NOT continuity for the sake of continuity.
Would you argue that continuity was GOOD if HC was leading us off a cliff?
I want to preface the rest of this by saying I voted FOR HC. And I voted AGAINST Corps proposal.
BUT:
But saying that Rmarchma or corp aren't prepared to run the company isn't much of an argument FOR HC. Nor IMHO is a refrain about what he did ten years ago.
A much more persausive argument for me is what he has done for us lately.
I guarantee you that next time he's up my vote for or against will be based on what he has done for us since the last time, since he was reelected to the BOD in 2005 . I absolutely won't be thinking about 1995-2004. Any more than I would vote to bring back Roman Gabriel or Randall Cunningham to quarterback the Philadelphia Eagles because of their PAST accomplishments. Anymore than I'd be bringing back Jerry Rice if I were coach or GM of the 49ers.
This is capitalism. I don't see any place for sentimentality and I think loyalty is misplaced. The bottom line is what counts to me.
In my mind there is little or no question that the compensation IS excessive. It would look a little less so if IDCC brings home the bacon, but it is still excessive IMHO. And if and when IDCC comes close to getting the full value of its IP I WILL be supporting corp's proposal too--no question that the antitakeover provisions hold down shareholder value in most cases.
I find the attitude of some on this board very surprising. And you're one of the ones I find it to be so surprising from.
That attitude about what HC did for us way back when holds absolutely no sway with me. Nor does the criticism that rmarchma might not be prepared to run the company.
Well that doesn't mean someone else isn't!
Would those who tell us that we need to support HC because of what he did way back when be prepared to sign Jerry Rice to a perpetual contract if they owned the 49ers?
Or bring back Roger Staubach or Troy Aikman because of their past accomplishments?
That is sports. The bottom line is the bottom line. It isn't about past accomplishments or championships, it is exactly what have you done for me lately.
And this is capitalism. There is no room for sentimentality or loyalty. The bottom line is the bottom line.
What makes sense are arguments about what HC has done for us LATELY. Not ten years ago. Not even five years ago.
I'm not prepared to dump him today.
But I am far from convinced that I'll be voting FOR him next time around. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. My evaluation then will be based SOLELY on what he has done from now until then (assuming he is retained this time).
And even IF he has done a great job, if someone better is available, I'll vote him out and vote for someone else to come in.
HC might have been the right man or even the only man to bring us from there to here but is he the right man to take us to the next level? I don't know. In fact an industry heavyweight with some clout and gravitas is probably a much better choice.
I find it really surprising that people here seem to be voting out of what I perceive as misplaced sentimentality and loyalty and as nice as that might be, it isn't the sort of thing that makes for succesful companies.
As to HCs past accomplishments, if IDCC isn't performing well from now till next time, I say give him a gold watch and thanks for all he's done and don't let the door hit him in the butt on the way out! Sounds harsh but makes business sense to me. Perform or hear the words "You're fired!"
JMHO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
