Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Never, let's keep the facts straight.
" The Polis on the board even sold a significant # of shares recently."
Eric has not personally sold even one share of EDIG. The shares reported on the Form 4s were all indirect sales. In fact he has added shares personally and to his children's IRAs.
Let's keep the facts straight, Eric did not sell any personal owned shares of EDIG. He has to report a purchase or sale of stock by any entity he has an interest in, whether or not he has control. As you will notice in the filing he also purchase stock of EDIG for his minor children the day before the trust sold.
"Oh No"
On the last trade someone sold 500 shares @ .093 for $46.50, everyone panic!
Cassandra: The $30,000 monthly fee is not combined with the contingency fee it is part of the contingency fee. The $30,000 payments are substracted from Handal's 33%. Let's please keep the facts straight.
e.Digital pays a $30,000 monthly retainer to Handal & Associates (which is combined with a 33% contingency fee).
Cassandra:
It's the 10-K that is due on 6-30-2013, the 10-Q is due on 8-15-2013
heybrad no totals?????
"We are pleased to have Creative join our family of Flash-R portfolio licensees," said Fred Falk, president and CEO of e.Digital. "Creative joins the growing list of Flash-R portfolio licensees, which includes Panasonic, Samsung, Olympus, HTC and other world recognized manufacturing companies. With the assistance of our law firm, Handal & Associates, this now brings the total number of license and settlement agreements during 2013 to five as we aggressively pursue our monetization efforts."
by heybrad:
mrkool.. I was not mentioning their lack of communication skills I was pointing out a complete change in info dissimenation in their PR's. from at least PR,s announcing settlements 12 - 19 I believe everyone of them kept a running total. We are proud to announce our 19th licenses etc. the most recent 2 PR's there is no total of licenses nor even a tally of how many Handal has recently settled. It's almost as if Fred trolls these boards and knows what is being said. It will be interesting to see if fred ever gives a total again of licenses. Not just setltlements but paying licenses.
Yes, it all boils down to can you comprehend what you read.
Is there no rule on this board about beating a dead horse.
It's not just two Companies.
Responsible companies like Diasonic and iriver, who respect the intellectual properties of others, are some of the most recent parties to license our technology. In addition, we are in licensing negotiations with several other companies which we expect will materialize into finalized agreements soon," added Falk.
He did not sell any from his personal IRA the statement just shows how many shares he has in his personal IRA. The statement shows his total beneficial interest in e.Digital stock after changes.
1,888,601 in Family Trust.
1,042,696 in Polis Family LLC.
25,000 in Personal IRA.
80,000 as custotian for minor children.
3,036,297 total beneficial ownership for reporting perposes.
He did not personally sell any shares. The Family Trust may have sold shares or may have distributed them to benificiarys. It looks like his share of the distribution was gifted to his minor children.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886328/000129549012000001/xslF345X03/primary_doc.xml
From Fred:
The question was about suing for past infringment.
Dear Charles,
There are many many details involved in patent litigation. As we indicated in our latest press release regarding the '737 patent, the patent office allowed the original claim (#5) "without substantive modification." That is key and that's why we indicated that we were very pleased with the USPTO's decision. That's all I can say at this time.
Kind regards,
Fred
Cassandra, I see your still up to your old tricks.
FWIW, I read the claims construction documents documents submitted by EDIG
. I found it to be laborious to read and skipped much of it.
There is a big difference between asking hard questions and just plain a** dumb criticism. I rewrote part of your post a little to make it more accurate.
As I've mentioned many times before, real companies have their feet held to the fire regularly. By Wall Street analysts and institutional holders, who ask hard questions/make blunt assessments all the time, getting in the face of management. Because if you own the stock, management works for you -- not the other way around, they are the most savvy of the Wall Street professionals.
People who criticize management and the company in a public forum are vile, evil, foul, putrid bashers, who clearly don't own any shares because only an idiot criticizes his own investment.
From silversufer's PACER search:
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and Defendant Olympus America Inc.
(“Olympus”) have settled their dispute and they hereby move, through their undersigned counsel,
for an order that Plaintiff e.Digital’s claims for relief against Olympus in the above-styled action
and Olympus’ counterclaims in the above-styled action be dismissed with prejudice.
#
Date Filed Docket Text
03/31/2009 152 Joint MOTION to Dismiss by Olympus America, Inc., E.Digital Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Yungwirth, Matthew) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
Dear wsidejack:
As a matter of fact I do have more to share.
The law clerks "cut and paste" skills are just fine. I don't know what version you read but in the original NDA it reads just as the court presented. http://www.box.net/shared/bz4d8bjeok#1:25265498
As to talking to lawyers you might want to make sure they are up on California law. Do you really think that this judge only used one case to reach his decision. Judges will cite a pertinent case and it up to the ones reading the citation to do any further legal research, else the citations could go on forever.
wsidejack:
You're suprised by the ruling, have you even read the non-compete section of the NDA agreement it's an incoherent mess, please read number 4 at the bottom.
6. Non-Competition: RECIPIENT agrees not to compete with APS, Inc. directly or
indirectly during the term of this Agreement and for a period of seven (7) years after the
termination of this agreement anywhere in the world by years after termination of this
agreement anywhere in the world by manufacturing and/or selling like or similar
components: (any and all components that APS, Inc. and manufactured, designed, etc.
Here's what the court had to say about California and Washington law.
B. Application of California Law to the 2002 NDA
A straightforward application of § 16600 leads the court to the conclusion that Paragraphs
1, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2002 NDA are void under California law. That section, entitled “[v]oid
contracts,” states that:
Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from
engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.
California Business and Professions Code § 16600. Each of Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the 2002
NDA restrains e.Digital from participating in the market for airline-appropriate digital viewers,
which is a lawful activity. digEcor cites no authority suggesting that § 16600 does not apply to
the 2002 NDA or to these two corporate parties.4 Nor does digEcor suggest that any exception to
§ 16600 might apply here. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of e.Digital and against
digEcor on all claims relating to the enforceability Paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 5 of the 2002 NDA is
appropriate.
3 Even if Washington law were to be applied, as digEcor urges, the prospects of enforcing
the 2002 NDA’s non-competition provisions as written would be dim. Washington law requires
that limits on competition be reasonable in duration and geographic scope. See, e.g., Perry v.
Moran, 748 P.2d 224, 230-31 (Wash. 1987) and Sheppard v. Blackstock Lumber Co., Inc., 540
P.2d 1373, 1376 (Wash. 1975). The court has serious doubts that Paragraph 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the
2002 NDA, with their uncertainty, inconsistency and expansive scope, would survive a
reasonableness inquiry.
4 “While many cases applying section 16600 arise in the context of an
employer-employee relationship, the statute also applies to other contracts, such as manufacture
or distributorship agreements between businesses or individuals.” Jan Marini Skin Research,
Inc. v. Allure Cosmetic USA, Inc., 2007 WL 1508686, *13 n.20 (Cal. App. Ct. May 24, 2007)
(citations omitted) (unpublished opinion).
15
Just for you Fred:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
e.DIGITAL PROVIDES LITIGATION UPDATE
(SAN DIEGO, CA, – March 16, 2009) – e.Digital Corporation (OTC: EDIG), a leading technology innovator of dedicated portable entertainment systems and patented flash memory-related technology, today summarized recent court action related to business litigation between the Company and digEcor, Inc.
On March 13, 2009 the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a partial ruling on the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. As part of the ruling, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of e.Digital on digEcor's claim that e.Digital was in breach of non-competition obligations in an agreement between the parties. Concerning the alleged non-compete provisions, the Court held "that California law applies to the 2002 NDA. Further, the court holds that Paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 of 2002 NDA are invalid under California law because they refrain e.Digital from lawfully competing with digEcor." This holding vindicates e.Digital's longstanding position that it is free to conduct its lawful business without non-compete restraint or obligation to digEcor.
The Court also concluded that e.Digital failed to deliver certain batteries to digEcor, a claim that the Company has never denied. e.Digital has maintained an accrual of $80,000 for such estimated obligation as more fully discussed in the notes to its annual and interim financial statements. The Court further ruled that e.Digital did not breach a certain performance provision of the 2002 contract between the parties and that digEcor was not obligated to negotiate a revenue sharing arrangement under the same agreement. The Court did not grant summary judgment to either side on the issue of the timeliness of the 2006 delivery of video players. This and other matters related to the parties’ motions, as more fully described in the Company’s regulatory filings, remain to be resolved by future court rulings or at trial.
While decisions of the Court may be subject to appeal, e.Digital is pleased with the Court's ruling finding the non-compete provisions of the 2002 NDA unenforceable as a matter of law. e.Digital will continue to offer its proprietary portable eVU™ entertainment system to the IFE and other industries.
Fred I'm not assuming anything it's in black and white from the U.S. District Court.
Cassandra and Fred see if you can spin this:
From Silversurfer's Pacer discoveries:
In summary, digEcor got CRUSHED! by silversurfer
posted on Mar 14, 09 01:41AM
1. Court rules California law applies to the 2002 NDA, not Washington law. HUGE win for us! (Doc 324, page 8, last para)
2. Court rules provisions 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2002 NDA as invalid. This allows EDIG to compete in IFE. HUGE win for us! (Page 8, last para)
3. Court rules that EDIG did not breach the "Functional Specifications" clause of the 2002 Agreement. (Page 18, para 2)
4. Court rules the "Good Faith Negotiation" clause of the 2002 Agreement as unenforceable. (Page 19, para 1)
5. Court rules that EDIG owes digEcor the purchase price it paid for 1250 Li-on batteries that weren't delivered. (Page 23, para 3)
6. Court rules that both parties are denied judgments in the late delivery of the digEplayer 5500's due to disputed questions of fact and ambiguity in the Purchase Order. (Page 19, para 3)
7. Court rules as moot EDIG's motion for continuance on its claims of misappropriation, tortuous interference and defamation. This is because EDIG has since withdrew its claim of misappropriation and the two parties have engaged in supplemental briefings on the other two claims. (Page 23, last para and page 24, para 1)
8. Court rules against digEcor regarding it's motion to strike EDIG's concordance, but will disregard the third column which contains editorial comments. (Page 24, para 2)
Fred you stated:
"On the other hand, I dont see DM hanging around much longer unless the size of the settlements increase."
In the last 10Q there were three settlements and DM's cut was $2.027 million in the last two Quarters. In the current Quarter there will be at least three more, so in nine months DM will pocket over $4 million plus. Your right I don't see DM hanging around much longer with only 180 plus more to go. Like I have said before where do you come up with this stuff.
Cassandra
Yes there were two material weaknesses and neither one of them has anything to do with your inference that e.Digital intentionally delayed the Nikon filing. As for using item 4 as an example, I guess you can intentionally mislead as long as you preface it with "IMO".
"there were material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. The material weaknesses identified during management's assessment were (i) the lack of independent oversight by an audit committee of independent members of the Board of Directors, and (ii) ineffective controls over the period ending closing process that failed to identify a misclassification of supplier material transfers during the second and third quarter of fiscal 2008."
Cassandra why did you post only the first part of Item 4. Controls and Procedures. You know as well as I do that this section has nothing to do with the company intentionally delaying the Nikon PR as you try to infer. People please read the whole section, it is located on page 26 and 27 of the 10Q. It has to do with Internal Controls and an Audit Committee.
A Different Perspective:
Risk factors of buying EDIG stock into this run at these prices...
(also applies to holding trading shares, particularly over the next 2 weeks). These are things you'll find being openly discussed on agoracom.
1. Results of the 1/20/09 hearing on summary judgment motions in the digEcor case are imminent. If the judge finds that EDIG did not violate the non-compete provisions of the 2002 NDA and digEcor is not awarded an injunction barring EDIG from selling the eVU to airlines, it could trigger a rush of new and reorders for the eVU. Such an event could trigger a best-case scenario because EDIG does have the cash to perform.
2. Although it appears that settlements have been reached with 6 of the 8 IP defendants, the $ value is known only for the LG settlement. Settlement revenue from Casio and possibly Nokia will be included in the FY09 Q3 10Q filing due 2/15/09. The value of the actual settlement(s) could be quite a bit larger than the $1.6 million from LG, which was unofficially explained as a one-time discount to the first settling party.
3. The 3,500,000 “commitment shares” issued to Fusion Capital in Jan. 07 will become freely tradable on 3/9/09, which is 25 months from the effective date of the accompanying share registration (see 8K). This date also marks the expiration of the purchase agreement so it is likely that EDIG will attempt to cash out all remaining shares reserved for Fusion by then. With the price of the stock appreciating Fusion just might hold on to their shares as the possibility of making millions is at hand.
4. Despite the fact that Putnam supposedly stated at the Sept. 08 ASM that there are now over 200 proposed defendants, no further IP suits have been filed. DM was engaged in 3/07, so they have had nearly two years to file suits. They filed against Vivitar in 9/07 and the other 7 on 3/2/08. In 3 weeks it will be one year since the last suit was filed. It seems likely that DM is going to file lawsuits against another 10 or 20 defendants in the very near future. It's possible DM won't have to file many more suits, as infringing companies license the Flash-R portfolio through negotiations.
5. The current price run is based upon 3 PACER filings last week indicating settlements in progress. There seems to be an assumption that these settlements are going to be big wins for EDIG.
I expect to see this run keep going and the share price increase. If risk factor #1 occurs, the SP could rise dramatically. If the 10Q is not disappointing, the SP will rise, but not as dramatically.
People who buy at the start of these runs always end up holding a big bag of money.
Chuck329
Where do you get this
CRAP. Please show me where Mezzo is mentioned or even hinted at in this PR.
Please show me where you read they were moving out of IFE.
The only thing I have seen was GROW and EXPAND the eVU business beyond IFE.
"While we have a great record of innovation, until recently, we have not had the resources to grow our eVU business into other markets beyond in flight entertainment (IFE)," continued Cocumelli. "With the recent and expected influx of new licensing revenues, we are in a better position to pursue business opportunities and partnerships in the medical industry, and in other segments of the travel and leisure industry. Fred Falk's experience in building and managing partnering and licensing relationships align with the Company's shift in business direction. We're happy to have him back at the helm."
"We are encouraged by our recent IP success and Robert Putnam, our senior vice president, will continue to manage our patent portfolio monetization efforts," remarked Fred Falk. "Our strategy is to expand our eVU business through partnering with companies that share our vision of building a successful full service, dedicated portable entertainment business in multiple markets."
Press Release Source: e.Digital Corporation
e.Digital Announces First Flash-R(TM) Patent Portfolio License and Settlement Agreement
Thursday September 25, 1:00 pm ET
Company Also Cross-Licenses Multimedia-Related Patents
SAN DIEGO, CA--(MARKET WIRE)--Sep 25, 2008 -- e.Digital Corporation (OTC BB:EDIG.OB - News), a leading technology innovator of dedicated portable entertainment systems and patented flash memory-related technology announced today that a major electronics manufacturer has purchased the first license for its Flash-R(TM) patent portfolio. Under the terms of the confidential licensing and settlement agreement, e.Digital is receiving a one-time licensing fee and cross-license rights to certain patents covering multimedia-related products.
ADVERTISEMENT
e.Digital's Flash-R patent portfolio covers certain aspects of the use of flash memory, addressing today's large and growing portable electronics products market. The Company unveiled the first portable recorder with removable flash memory in 1993 and believes its patent portfolio to be essential to many consumer electronics products that utilize flash memory including cell phones, digital cameras, camcorders, PDA's and other popular devices. In September 2007 and March 2008, the Company filed its first Flash-R portfolio patent infringement litigation against eight defendants.
"We are very pleased to have entered into what we believe will be the first of many Flash-R patent portfolio licensing agreements," said Robert Putnam, senior vice president of e.Digital Corporation.
Is it possible that Blakeley's focus is the running of the day to day operations and product sales for the company?
Your lame attempt at trying to scare anyone by stating "Is it possible that Blakeley is leaving" is completely laughable. The only reason this PR was put out was to serve notice on the 176+ infringing companies that if you don't license voluntarily we will sue your butts off and we don't care how long it takes. This way they get around sending a Notice and Demand letter or filing suit and do not jeopardize their legal options.
Cassandra, show me where I affirmed any of your main points.
Where in this statement do you read e.Digital is responsible to provide and pay for ALL technical documentation. Myself I can't find the word "all" anywhere.
"e. At its own cost, the Company shall provide technical services to support Duane Morris’ prosecution of the Patent Enforcement Matters."
The lien is standard practice in these cases to protect DM from e.Digital's sale of the company or the patents.
As for being one-sided, now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
As usual not the true story,
Cassandra "
By stating that it is "finalizing documentation" to "support" additional patent portfolio actions, it is not even stating an expectation of the filing of such actions. The decision of whether to file is 100% in the hands of Duane Morris.
From the last 10-Q:
We also own an important portfolio of patents related to the use of flash memory in portable devices (our Flash-R™ portfolio) and we are actively engaged in a strategy to monetize our patent portfolio. We have an over 19 year record of innovation and significant investment in our intellectual property asset base which includes being the first company to employ and patent important aspects of the use of removable flash memory in portable recording devices. In June 2006 we engaged an intellectual property consultant to investigate, document and develop the portfolio and to liaison with outside legal counsel. In March 2007 we selected and engaged the international legal firm Duane Morris LLP to handle certain patent enforcement matters on a contingent fee basis. We, and our advisors, have performed certain due diligence on our patents and we believe we have strong intellectual property rights that can be licensed. During the second quarter of fiscal 2008 we commenced enforcement action with respect to our patent portfolio. We expect to bring additional patent enforcement actions during this fiscal year.
Which ends 3-31-2008
You doubt that current products are being targeted and you state that Duane Morris is just another ambulance chaser. Fred, like I've said before DUE YOU EVER READ THE COMPANIES PR'S or DUE ANY RESEARCH AT ALL, or are you here just to spread your negative slant.
"Our intellectual property team is finalizing detailed legal and technical documentation to support additional Flash-R(TM) patent portfolio enforcement actions against a broad range of companies," added Blakeley. "To date, we have identified annual U.S. revenues of more than $20 billion from what we believe are infringing products from such companies.[b/] Our robust intellectual property portfolio addresses vital aspects of the use of removable flash memory in portable devices, and we believe the number of infringing companies and associated revenues continues to grow annually[b/]."
e.Digital has selected and engaged the international legal firm Duane Morris LLP to handle certain patent enforcement matters on a contingent fee basis. Duane Morris is one of the 100 largest law firms in the world. In 2005 Duane Morris was recognized as the 13th most active patent litigation firm in the U.S. and was ranked 16th in the number of new patent litigation matters undertaken, according to IP Law360.[b/]
Pardon, you are
It seems your the one who wants to mislead.
e.Digital's IP has already been noticed and stolen by the product developers and is being used now and in future products, hense the lawsuits to filed by one of the top IP Law firms in the world.
Cassandra it is wonderful, and
all of them are already infringers.
If e.Digital's IP is so wonderful, why doesn't their "monetization" plan seem to include actively marketing it for licensing to companies in the cell phone, pda, camera, etc. business instead of only going after supposed infringers?
Arkie don't confuse the boys with facts.
The reappearance of Cassandra and suspicious trading, hmmmm.
Digicor V e.Digital
Good find by milplease on agora:
http://www.maxjet.com/homeAction.do#/html/Experience/InFlightLiving/OnBoard/Do.html
Ya Fred
We all know what an expert you are on the size of the handheld IFE market. Please, enlighten us on your experience and your personal knowledge in this area so any newcomers can gain the full understanding of this limited market.