Replies to post #24390 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[badpump]

BSW Do you realize that you are just further entrenching the "No" voters?

To infer the only way IDCC stayed healthy and afloat was to enrich top management. I can just see it now, "Say Rip, cash flow is a little short this month so why don't you sell a couple thousand options."

[Corp_Buyer]

BSW- Here are the facts for you:

* The prior ISO plan ended in Dec. 1999;
* The 2000 ISO Plan replaced the prior plan;
* At the end of 1999, there were under 50M shares outstanding, much less than the 56M we have today. Per 1999 10K there were "48,474 shares issued and outstanding";
* The current ISO plan is excessive and rich by any measure;
* The RATE of ISO grants is excessive by any measure.
* Average pay i.e. salary and bonus, not counting ANY ISO comensation, has increased over 50% from 1999 to current ($400K now, per proxy) for the top executives, which is quite generous;
* No executive has left IDCC due to lack of compensation.

These are the facts. Read them and weep.

We don't need another significant long term pay raise for employees at this time. Therefore, I will vote "NO" on proposition #2.

Corp_Buyer

[rmarchma]

Bluesky re recurring royalty and quarterly results you said:

...."Are you going to complain next that IDCC shouldn't have diluted its stock to finance the growth of recurring royalty revenue from less than $1M for the entire year of 1998 to more than $20M in 4Q2002 alone??? "

Virtually all of IDCC's ongoing recurring royalty stream comes from only two licensees: NEC and Sharp. I estimate that in 2002 only about $2m per quarter of ongoing recurring royalty is from licensees other than NEC and Sharp. What do stock options have to do with the NEC and Sharp licenses? Are you saying that it is only because IDCC issued stock options that they were able to get the NEC and Sharp contracts? I can't follow your logic here.

IDCC's first quarter results should be very, very good. However, I am worried about future guidance in the CC especially for the second quarter, primarily because of Sharp and NEC. Evidently Sharp has not yet renewed its 2G PDC/PHS license or there would have been a press release. Without this 2G PDC/PHS recurring royalty from Sharp, and nothing to replace it, the second quarter could be heading downward. Therefore we really need something more concrete about the possible timing of Nokia and Samsung.

Secondly NEC definitely should have used-up their 3G advance in the first quarter. Therefore, they are due to pay another 3G advance to receive the prepayment discount, or switch to quarterly payments. Nothing has been mentioned thus far about NEC's 3G renewal payment. I would think that if NEC paid another substantial 3G advance, a press release could have been issued. However, I do not know if a press release would have been required or not on an NEC renewal. Something to watch for though.

Back to the option issue. I also have trouble with you equating options to IDCC results, and then concluding that they really deserved the previous option grants. IDCC had a Net Loss in 2001 and still granted 5.1m options or about 10% of the outstanding stock. IDCC had a miserable year in 2000 and a Net Loss, and still granted 2.5m in options.