RE:"Today they risk being criticized if they DO own it." Why?shareholders1, what you write is all very interesting but you completely miss the most essential point.
Things change. They change inside the company and they also change in terms of the industry situation.
There may have been some problems within WiLAN / Quarterhill in the past. Indeed, I'll give you one example I came across over a year ago. Their SEDI filings were a mess. There were multiple entries for the same person all over the place. And it was just ugly and sloppy. While it may not have had any particular bearing on operations it was suggestive of elements of a kind of culture of sloppiness that went right to the top.
I spoke with Dave Mason about it and it was fairly promptly fixed.
Should they change the whole board because of this? I would say no.
You also have to consider things that were beyond the company's control. We all know about the America Invents Act and the shift to a patent-holder-unfriendly legal landscape in the US. Add in the huge loss to Apple in 2013--which, if I have it right, could have gone either way (and there was even good reason to believe WiLAN should have won).
So, surprise surprise. WiLAN shares didn't do brilliantly during 2011-2019.
But don't unjustifiably mix up the past and the present. Top of the list: that era (and the issues that dominated it, internal and external) predates the arrival of Paul Hill (and John Rim, for that matter). So this is a different company--in spite of the fact that there will be some continuity. Anyways, don't assume that the Quarterhill of 2021 will not have been able to transform itself vs. the Quarterhill of 2011 or 2015 or even 2020.
(There are also some noteables in the "external" column. There are signs that the legal landscape may be moving back to something a little more balanced with regard to patent holder rights. Maybe even more significant is the Biden infrastructure plan and, regardless, a growing acceptance of the value of ITS technology.)
To look at it from the other side, if you just don't believe that Quarterhill can evolve in a good way beyond its past, if you think it's trapped within its past, then, yes, 100%, you don't want to own the stock.
Myself, I'm not in that camp.
-----------------
Actually, this relates to my scepticism regarding the value of management spending more than minimal time trying to reach out to institutional shareholders. My impression is that many (not all) institutional investors tend toward a kind of cautious over-reliance on company history. This will be partly driven by their clients and the fear of client backlash.
(Here's one way to put it. If you recommend an accepted quality name and it goes bad then you're okay because everybody else held it or recommended it. But if you buy something that clients have never heard of, etc., and IT goes bad--well, you may be looking for a new job.)