You asked why some people will defend the board regardless of the evidence of the BoDs poor performance. Consider this

1) An investor hears a tip about a stock and only has to reach into their pocket for loose change to become a shareholder. This investor may or may not be a family member or close personal friend of someone affiliated with the company.

2) An investor who does their due diligence determines that based on PRs and financials, the patents on water look promising, the wave of license agreements are encouraging, the info that over 400 companies may be infringing and the positive outcome of re-exams convinces this investor to take a chance and and invests a few hundred thousand dollars.

Now fast forward to a revolving door of CEOs, multiple failed M&As, a board who has failed to bring value to all shareholders and who puts up a legal fight with shareholder money to prevent any shareholder from holding a position on the board where the BoD's activities will be under close and careful scrutiny.

Which investor, #1 or #2 will be the most vocal about poor BoD performance, so much so, that other shareholders ultimately will show their disdain for the BoD by withholding their votes for them. Sadly,corporate governance, bylaws and SEC rules do not favor shareholders. The BoD with about as much personal investment as #1 , do not feel as much pain as #2 so they have less concern about share price than #2 does.

The proof of how many #2's are disgusted with the board is evidenced by the results of the elections. They are gaining momentum and growing in numbers.