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.
What's all the hubub for anyway... the PR doesn't say a thing about a customer or having any or even 'talking to' or 'in discussion with' a potential customer.
It says, leaving out all the parenthetical phrases:
"[Edigital]announced it has partnered with Mezzo Movies. Mezzo Movies and e.Digital are partnering to make eVU(TM) available to airlines..."
That's IT!!! they announced a partner.... they announced the same partner twice even --- in two different sentances... talk about being redundant... but they didn't bother to say what their 'partner' relationship is.
Why is anybody even trying to make this out to be something else like a 'customer'?. Oh, I forgot... it's the hype that counts of course.... not the material content.
History's been a very good guide so far... and no partner nor any customer Edig has ever had, ever, have even come close to enabling Edig to ever profit or even come close to profiting... and most 'partners' have turned into lawsuits... of one kind or another or the 'partner' has bad-mouthed Edig and Edig had no basis to bring a suit... one way or the other Edig's 'partners' and customer's have turned into a negative asset... i.e. a liability.
Then again, the hypes will say "there's always a first time"... to which I say "yep"... someday the sun will cease to shine too... for the first time.... long, long after we're all long dead and gone. So too it will be with Edigital... either they'll morph into another co. with zero or near zero value to it's now common shares, or anybody now invested in it will have long since died by the time Edig actually finds a partner or customer that can bring them to a break-even condition.... and that's being widely optimistic.
London... that part about a "rational" solution ...
... is probably due to your lack of awareness of Edig's business model.
My analysis of the last 10 years, and last 6 in particular, are rather conclusive about Edig's raison'd'etre...
Your own review of the last 10 years economics and PR's that need to be read with the SEC filings to appreciate and understand the business model is highly recommended.
In a nutshell, Edig loses money hand over fist year in and year out every year without fail for any reason (pick any reason you can conjure up). They sell preferred convertables to their financier's at well-below market rates when the conversions actually occur to carry on into the next year's continued losses. The financier's keep coming back to invest yet more every year... and in the meantime, the number of shares outstanding continues to increase and shorting takes care of the rest.
This goes on every year without fail... Edig hypes some new prospective deal and business... the dufii buy into it... the price spikes temporarily, followed by a decline thru and beyond the last lows into new lows... they run short on cash up to the wire, propelling the price even lower as cash runs out, and miraculously, they get another cash infusion deal based on a conversion priveledge condition (and often exhorbitant interest rates until conversions occur) with the initial conversion price at or below the lowest of the lows, and so it goes... every year, without fail, regardless of the new business at hand or their new proprietary tech, or their new business "partners".
So who's the beneficiaries? The financier's of course, and the fundamentally useless executive officers who's only job is to stimulate stock sales so the financiers can benefit on the runs, and then subsequently on the short.
Edig has a fat cat deal going that's kept the executive officer's fat with cush jobs writing prose and sipping lunch with their numerous "prospective" clients. Why screw with a good and time tested formula? They've even gone out and got another 100k shares authorized to keep the sweet thing going.
The end game comes when the financier's have wrung out the remaining overvalued mkt cap down to the level at which the risk of further transferring excess value in mkt cap to their coffers exceeds the take.... which I peg at about $4M - $6M in mkt cap.
It's a legal transfer of funds from the excessive of mkt cap over real value from the dufii to the financiers. In any market when someone realizes that the current value of a good or service is excessive, they will find a way to take out the difference for themselves... capitalize on the difference between actual and perceived value. It's Edig management's job to keep the perceived value as high as possible.
London, Cassie... I posted my take on "revoking" on RB yesterday... the key words are RP's "contemplating"... any conjecture as to the validity of a revokation is wishful thinking by the hypes. ... which, btw, is the reason for the PR mentioning it in the 1st place.
I played 'fly on the wall' during the meeting that resulted in the "contemplating revoking..." phrase.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EDIG&read=1242729
RP Poetry...
"...experiencing growing interest from prospective ... customers..."
"growing interest"... from 0 to 1 prospective customer?
"prospective customers"... all potential customer's are prospective ones... pick any potential customer at will, then you can say they're prospective ones.
"experiencing".... how? an e-mail inquiry to send more information that that provided on their website?
Notice the classic RP method of letting the reader insert their own imagined and pre-biased quantitatives related to these key words and phrases.
"...we have signed our first IFE eVU agreement and received our first IFE eVU order, details of which we expect to announce next month along with other eVU business."
This earth shaking announcement's details are lacking... next month they "expect" to announce details about it. So the details are what? 10? preview? parts for evaluations before any orders are placed?... who funded the 10 parts? Edig? Why wait to announce the details if it's such a good deal... if it's like all the others they've had, then they're waiting for some evaluation results before they can announce anything positive... since if the evaluation falls flat what'll they tell shareholders?... whoops!... once again! "expect"... we all know what RP means by "expect". ... there's over a 10 year history of PR's with "expect" and what has actually occurred? $4M - $5M in annual losses every year despite all the "expects".
Of course, the hypes will say "there's always a first time."... yes, but edig's first times are always a day late and a dollar or more shy.
London... that's easy... been easy since day one... the 'future of this stock' isn't guesswork. At any given point in time the actual value of the company is far below it's then current market value.... it's not about what the co's got to support it's valuation... it has nothing that supports it at all.... well, it's got RP, whose prose in PR's is indeed of some value... but only in selling stock at inflated prices to the public, and below market prices to the friendly private investors.
The only remaining questions I have are
1. how long it will take for the financier's to remove the remaining market capitalization (excess of capitalized value over actual value) down to the range of $4M - $5M at which point there's insufficient roi for the risk of trying to remove the remainder. I've calculated this occurs by end of '07.... though the wonder of RP's prose and the near inexhaustible supply of dufii may push this out a bit longer.
2. How so many can be so clueless... which I assume, but don't know for certain, can be attributed to a generation of educational neglect... letting kids move to the next grade level without having learned sufficient material from the grade level they were in to justify going to the next level with even less capability to progress than they had when they were allowed to progress from their prior class to the one they'r trying to progress from now. If you make it socially unacceptable to be held back (socially unacceptable to parents and students), and then hold those that aren't ready back, you'll get the expected response.... cause/effect works pretty simply (both in the socio-economic sense, as well as the physical world).
There's no question though about what the stock's going to do... unless you're talking about the trading spikes and dips over the short terms.... 250% recently from low to high was much better than they've been doing on a run.... but it's duration was much shorter as well... which means the traders are a higher proportion of the trades and are relatively more risk adverse... in real terms, they maintain the same levels of average risk, but Edig's risk in price spikes magnitudes has gone up, and frequency of occurance confidence levels has gone down.... so traders are in/out faster... hence the shorter duration of, and lower the levels of the spikes.
ff.. finally!
You're beginning to get the picture ... silk purses & sows ears. Ultimately a sows ear is a sows ear no matter how hard you try to sell it as a silk purse using smoke and mirrors.
There's a difference between a salesman that can sell refrigerator's to eskimoes or sand to Saudi's, and those that sell sows ears made to look like a silk purse. Why do you think used car salesmen have the reps they have?
Right... I recall our honeymoon too, Cassie... how could I have forgotten that!! Was that before or after you were 'over 40'?
5'7", 136 lbs.... but what about that other measurement? Not that I'm a sexist or anything... I'm just a male.... no excuses.... other than I apparently didn't make it much beyond my adolescence.
Besides, it's probably for the best that you chose Dan...we don't quite see eye-to-eye on Heybrad... your "he seems like an ok guy" or words to that effect based on a telephone call you had with him didn't smack of the kind of candor I'd come to expect from you... so you're pulling back and I like it unadulterated.
Have fun with Dan though... but when the romance with him wears off, give me a holler.... substance persists.
Trouble is you haven't learned to move your mouse and double click with your tongue though.
Very good response you had though (50WPM)... was that with our without error?... on second thought... it doesn't matter though does it? ROFLMAO... really, except for the floor part.... had to stand up I was laughing so hard.
Kudo's to your wit and sense of humor, and tongue in cheek innuendo. Really good at it, you are.
c'mon rr... we all know her real name is TorF... who're you tryin' to kid.
BTW CD, you never really backed off if somebody else had made it first, did ya? Nah... didn't think so. I alway's figured I was always the better choice so didn't even give it a thought if they were dating (or whatever) somebody else, so I know you wouldn't expect me to let you have first dibs and walk away.
I didn't even draw the line on the married ones (before I was married)... which was even better, 'cause there were no expectations of my marrying them or 'breaking up'... boo-hoo's and all that. kinda felt bad for the poor hubbies though... figured they'ed figure out their wife wasn't worth it sooner or later.
I remember in my Soph year at University ... I went up to Sacto area on an invite by a former high-school girl friend (that I'd had a quick fling with when visiting the states for a month during my Jr year in high school)... went right to her house... before she told me she'd married a couple months earlier... but wanted me to meet her new hubby. Right! He came home from work about 3 hrs later.... meanwhile she re-seduced me, much to my protestations about violating the sanctity of marriage and all that.
What floored me though is that when he got home from work how she could turn it around without a blush. Poor guy never had a clue. They divorced 5 years and 2 kids later... and over the course of the years, she'd married and divorced 3 times!Guess she was the marrying kind, but couldn't deal with the monogamous part very well.... Duh! No kidd'n. I think she just kept thinking the grass was greener over the hill. I still wonder if she ever learned it wasn't really any greener finally.
OT... Yeah, CD, but
my wife's 5'4" so I'm used to that height... ... but I'd give 5'7" a whirl... 6' even more... I'm not little either (not short, I mean)... not a giant either, but I stand above most.. ~93rd or 94th percentile for men my age in US (I looked it up).
Hey we can double date... her, me, you... you're odd man out though, ok?
Actually though, hate to say, I'd have to get a divorce first... I'm the loyal, trustworthy type... or my wife would find out and forcefully, and vengfully, remove that body part I still value most. Of course, she did say, right after we were married... "don't ever screw around and if you do don't ever let me find out you spent any money on her."
So Cassie will have to be really, really persuasive... otherwise you get the honors.
OT: Cassie, if you're as hot as some think/say, and under 40, I take everything mean I ever said to you back. I'm a push-over for good looking, long legged, buxum, (natural's), 35-40 something's under 130 lbs, ~5'4 or taller... females.
London, regards your queary to TorF (Cassie) about the DRM agreement statement "Further, the Parties agree that EDIGITAL will have a non-exclusive, unlimited right to use its DRM technology for non-aircraft industries"...
Your question was: Does that mean Edig is out of the IFE game?
1st --- the agreement involves a new DRM Edig was contracted by digEcor to develop for digEcor... and the agreement specifies that it will be for digEcor's exclusive use in the IFE market, but that edig can use it (the DRM) in non-IFE markets... non-exclusively.. which means that digEcor can use it in the non-IFE market's as well... and not only that, but I think the DRM purchased by digEcor from Edigital can also be sold to other co's by DigEcor... since it's purchased (not licenced) by digEcor.
2nd --- the DRM contract is a contract in force since digEcor has paid consideration for it already... they purchased the 2000 digEplayer units for which Edig accepted payment... even though Edig hasn't delivered the goods (digEplayer units) to digEcor yet. They also confirred the $25k fee on Edigital, but Edigital refused to accept that payement... thereby repudiating their concurrance with the terms of the contract as signed and paid for in consideration they've already accetpted.
In simple lay terms,
digEcor said, "Hey, you (Edig) develop a new DRM for me and agree that I have the exclusive for it in the IFE market... so neither you nor anybody else can use this DRM in that market."
Edig then says, "o.k., but I (Edig) want to use the DRM I develop for you too."
And digEcor says, "That's o.k.... I'll let you use it in any market but the IFE market."
So Edig then say's "Does that mean you're going to let me (Edig) be the exclusive user of this DRM in any market outside the IFE market?"...
and digEcor responds "Oh, no... you can't have the exclusive rights to the DRM in markets outside the IFE market... since I (digEcor) also want to use it markets outside the IFE market... so we'll be competing with this DRM in other markets... get it?"
And Edig says, "Ok, I get it, but then what's in it for me?"
DigEcor say's "I'll pay you $25K to develop and deliver the working DRM to me."
Edig then says "That's a pretty cheap price to give you the exclusive use in the IFE market, and no exclusivity for me... so in addition, you need to use your influence with the movie studio's to get them to accept this new IFE... otherwise, I (Edig) won't even be able to use it in the non-ife market... nor, for that matter, will you."
So DigeCor says "that sounds fair... ok, I'll use whatever influence I have with the movie studio's to get them to authorize this DRM for use with their content... but I can't guarentee that they will... since the DRM has to work to their satisfaction 1st anyway."
So Edig say's... "ok, that's my (Edig) job to make it work to their satisfaction, but you have to use your influence to get them to accept it, right?"
And digEcor says "Right. I'll use whatever influence I have to influence the movie studio's to accept it if it works to their satisfaction."
Then Edig say's "But I still don't think $25k and using your influence is enough compensation for the DRM you're buying from me."
So digEcor say's "Well, what do you want?"
And Edig says "I think something on the order of $150k - $250k is more like it, so how about you buy another 2000 digePlayers thru me and my mfg'ing source and we'll call it a deal."
So DigEcor say's... "well, maybe, but what price will you give me for the 2000 units?... and when would you deliver them... and does this include the battery?"
And Edig say's... how about $570/unit + $64/battery... and lets say we'll delivery by.... lemmee see now... mfg'ing's about 6 weeks... so.. if we sign today, then Jan 10, Ok?"
And DigECor say's ok... then you'll get your normal gross margin on the 2000 part order which covers the $150k-$250k you want for the DRM... agreed?",
and Edig say's "Agreed. Let's draw it up and sign it."
There was also a little part about some of the 2000 part order being mfg'ing with the case by another company chosen by digEplayer... 750 of the 2000 units.
Now this is a very simple agreement... not black magic or full of loop-holes, but a real straight forward agreement and contract... it says digEcor has contracted for Edig to design and develop a new DRM for digEcor that satisfy's digEcor's requirements (which are detailed elseware in the contract. This DRM will belong to digEcor and edigital can use it themselves in the non-IFE market, but cannot use it themselves in the IFE market. digEcor can use it in any market however, and furhermore can license or sell it to others as well... since they own it outright ... no license or royalties apply, since they're buying it for a flat fee ($25k + a 2000 part digEplayer order for approx. $800k of which edig will earn a gross margin somewhere between $150k and $250k or thereabouts).
The whole exclusivity thing is simply to make sure that both parties agree that Edig can't use the DRM they develop for and sell to digEcor in the IFE market, but may use it themselves in the non-IFE market for products. DigEcor is buying the DRM and letting Edigital use it in an non-exclusive manner in the market's outside IFE... and not at all in the IFE market place. ... Both Edig and digEcor have agreed with one another that digEcor will own the DRM, but is letting Edig use it outside the IFE market place.
Simple, straight forward agreement between a company that predominantly is a marketing/sales company, and another that is predominantly an engineering services provider...Edig provides the product (DRM) contracted for for a price... i.e. develop and sell the DRM to digEcorl. In most cases of this kind, the engineering services co. is not in the business of trying to actually market their products developed for another entity to other companys or use it themselves in some product venue. In Edig's case, however, they've stated they want to use the DRM also... so the agreement stipulates that Edig may use it outside the IFE market.... non-exclusively... meaning they'll have to compete with it's use with others outside the IFE market arena... anybody that digEcor, including digEcor themselves, chose to license or sell the DRM to.
Now, here's what I think is the real skinny here. Edig survives by selling stock on the basis of hype related to it's IP use in obtaining royalties or selling licenses to it's IP. It's never primarily survived by selling any IP or licenses or royalties to it. There's a reason for this of course.... you can chew on what that might be if you don't already know. Suffice to say that's a died in blue true undisputable fact.
Therefore, in order to continue to be able to sell stock on the basis of it's hype, it has to appear to be able to have the ability to use it's IP in licenses or products to do so.
Therefore, the real agreement is simply the normal one for any engineering services company... digEcor contracts for edig to develop a product for digEcor and sells it to them for a fee... in this case a fee of about $175k - $300k worth. That would be that if it weren't for Edig's survival method needing to be supported. Therefore, digEcor lets the agreement include the added clause to let Edig use the DRM for non-IFE products of it's own.... non-exclusively however. This gives Edig the appearance (to their current and prospective dufii shareholders) of having retained their IP for their own product's uses and potential (hyped) future profitability and sales.
Somewhere along the line, after the agreement was signed however, Edig apparently changed it's mind... and doesn't want the agreement to remain in force. However, since they not only accepted the 2000 part sales order, but allegedly either fraudulently or by negligent misrepresntation also obtained the funds for the order from digEcor, they knowingly insured the contract's validity and enforcement as a valid contract... having exchanged consideration on the contract.
It is possible that after having signed the contract and obtained funds for it, the subsequent cash infusion deal with their financier's was brought to fruition and they no longer had the desperate need for the sales contract for the 2000 part order... i.e. could now bide their time until they obtained some contracts for the eVu. While this doesn't make a lot of sense to me from an economic point of view, I'm also not privy to whatever it was that caused Edig to have apparently changed their mind... I say apparently because the only statement we have about this is from the claims made by digEcor wherein they state Edig has refused to accept the $25k and has therefore repudiated the terms of the contract for the DRM. This would also imply that the DRM has been delivered already (or digEcor was willing to pay the $25K before it's been delivered? is also possible).
So it's not at all clear what's going on...yet... more is sure to come. Edig agrees with digEcor... then accepts consideration for the agreement from digEcor, then doesn't deliver the goods... then doesn't accept the $25k fee for the DRM from digEcor.
It has occurred to me while I've typed that Edigital's attorney's may argue that the 2000 part order cannot be considered as consideration for the agreement, and that therefore there has been no consideration exchanged and hence there is no contract (for the DRM agreement). This argument may have had some merit IF Edig was not expected (at the time the agreement was signed) to obtain any gross profit on the sale of the 2000 units to digEcor... AND had also delivered on or near the scheduled delivery date. This argument is the only reason I can think of for Edigital not accepting the $25k payment for the DRM. It's a skinny argument but it would appear that Edigital is seeking to nullify the agreement they made and to also argue it received no consideration for it either. That's all I can think of for why Edig wouldn't allegedly accept the $25k payment for the DRM. I don't think the argument can be shown valid, however, since edig used the 2000 part order from digEcor to publically tout it's revenue projections and continue it's place as a funnel for digEcor's product sales to the IFE industry, from which it implied it would continue to receive gross margins in the range of 20% - 30%.... and even conceivably used the order in part to obtain new financing, at least in part.
The argument might rest on the assertion that digEcor would have purchased the 2000 part order anyway at that price or more even... but in a court of law that comes under the heading "couda, shoulda, woulda" as pure, unprovable speculation, so it's a non-argument. Plaintiff: "Objection: Speculation!" Judge: "Granted. Jury will disregard the remarks from defendant about what the defendant is speculating the plaintiff 'woulda' done".
Suffice to say there are more shenanigans going on and which have been going on than we've been made privy to.
There's a lot of bs on the boards about "3rd party interference' with the Maycom non-delivey on the 2000 (or 1250) part order.
1st of all, there is definitely a 3rd party interference... since Maycom has multple clients and multiple component vendors, so for example if there was a lucrative contract to utilize the mfg'ing capacity available, then Edig's order could easily have been dumped due to the 'interference' of the lucrative contract by some other party needing Maycom's mfg'ing capacity.
The whole 3rd party interference item is a bogus red-herring in any event, placed in the 8k by Edigital to give the dufii something to chew on and spew forth on the boards that makes the delivery delay somehow not Edig's liability.
Look at it this way.... Maycom has some reason it can't / won't deliver on the order. That reason or reasons haven't been disclosed by Edigital... after 2 8k's released on the subject, which 8k's are issued to inform shareholders and interested parties of Edig's legal economic liability for the non-delivery and it's direct pecuniary quantitative implications.
What reasons would Maycom have?
There are several I can think of --- besides the ones where Maycom chose unilaterally to delay the mfg'r of the digEplayer due to overcommitted mfg'ing capacity in order to take on a more lucrative longer term or more profitable contract.
The reasons I can think of are biased by the observation that Edig hasn't made a peep about the reasons for the Maycom non-delivery. In addition to this observation, digEcor's suit claims 2 separate instances of Edig fraud or negligent misrepresentation to digEcor regarding the delivery being on schedule and completion of mfg'ing of the goods, (ready for delivery).
Furthermore, digEcor visited Maycom after or at the time of the delivery date scheduled by contract on Jan 10. This implies that digEcor sought to do whatever they could to either obtain the delivery, get a comittment from Maycom to get the delivery at some committed time, or discover why the delivery hadn't been made on schedule when Edigital had told them it was on schedule and ready for delivery.
The visit by digEcor to Maycom, Edig's vendor, was a reasonable and normal and prudent action to take after footing 100% of the bill before the delivery was made, when the delivery date was still uncertain and uncommitted.... after not being able to obtain a committment from their own vendor (Edigital) AND after having been told on 2 different occasions by Edigital that all was well in Denmark.
Furthermore, the non-delivery is not claimed to be for faults out of Edigital's control, since the contract terms for the PO specifically exclude all non-vendor possible reasons for non-performance from liability of the vendor (co. to whom the PO is given).
Therefore, digEcor is claiming both that Edig knew of the issues related to the delay, and were liable for having had the wherewithall and responsibility in their control to correct the situation.
Assume just for a simple example, that the Korean Electronic's industry and Gov't placed an export tax on shipments of completed goods or substantially completed sub-asm's of electronic's parts from Korea. Assume, that this tax act was enacted AFTER Edig placed the order with Maycom, but BEFORE the order was begun to be executed, and therefore the tax applied independant of anything Maycom was in control of or responsible for.
Further, then assume that before the goods could be shipped by Maycom, the tax was due. Maycom requests the tax be paid to Edigital, and Edig says no... it wasn't part of their contract with Maycom. So Maycom has no choice but to sit on the goods until the tax is paid... and Edig refuses to pay the tax. Stalemate ensues until somebody blinks.... and Korean Govt has no reason to blink, nor does Maycom... since they hold the inventory that Edig has already supplied the funds to Maycom for. Ball's in Edig's court in this purely hypothetical example of how Edig is directly responsible and liable, with Maycom caught in the middle.
Now, I don't suppose for a minute that this is the reason... since had that been the reason, or a similar scenario, then it's likely that said tax or surcharge would have been paid by digEcor to get it's paid for goods in hand, and THEN file suit for the tax or surcharge against Edigital.
So the reason for Maycom's non-delivery isn't related to an insubstantial surcharge of some kind that digEcor could have paid and then filed suit for recovery from Edigital.
This leaves 3 other types of reasons:
1. A substantial cost overrun due to some design or quality fault in the design for which Edig is responsible to pay for to get fixed.
2. An infringement of some Korean patent or other country patent or proprietary knowhow that prevents Maycom from shipping or completing the mfg'ing without compensating the infringed party or parties... and which infringement is a direct function of the Edigital design... therefore Edig's responsibility to compensate the infringed party. This kind of reason would qualify as a "third party" interference of course... but not in the context the hypes and dufii would hope were the case.
3. A sub-asm or electronic component supply shortage or quality problem that prevents Maycom from completing the mfg'er of the units using the specified Part Numbers the solution of which requires a design change by usng a different PN which may require additional work or testing or qualification by Edigital or their chosen testing facility to rectify. Substitution of a different PN in a design usually contains the phrase "Use xyz PN from Company ABC, or engineering approved alternative"... and the 'engineering approval' has to come from Edigital.... and their engineering tests may not have found the the alternative that actually works to meet the quality requirements.... or they've been negligent in pursuit of the testing reqiured to assure the alternative is acceptable. Maycom's simply waiting, therefore, for Edig to provide the go-ahead to use the alternate PN or combination of alternate PN's that are compatable in the asm to meet function and reliability. Edig could alledge that the lack of supply of the specified PN was due to the interference of a third party.... whether that had anything to do with the price of tea in China or not.
In each of these 3 types of reasons for Maycom's non-delivery Edig would have or should have been aware of the implications and their responsibility to resolve.... whether they were so inclined or not after having received the funds from digEcor is another question.
Keep in mind that Maycom's function is simply to asm (solder) the components to the board and test it... The components that are to be used are specified by the engineering document from Edigital. The PCB layout is Edigital's design. All Maycom does is print up the artwork for the PCB layout and send it to another vendor to make the actual PCB (Copper lines and via holes between layers if multilayer PCB). The electronic components are asm'ed to the board and wave soldered (or hot air knife soldered, or some other low volume mfg'ing soldering method -- even by hand for example if Maycom sub-contracted the asm to a vendor in China). The asm'ed unit is then attached to to a plug and tested... to some functional test conditions... perhaps after a burn-in period, but probably not.
The lead-time for getting the PCB's mfg'ed in the PO volumes is less than 3 weeks from delivery of artwork or schematic, to delivery... and this can be advanced by a week for a small surcharge.. ~15% adder. The component asm time to the board is less than a week for 2k boards ... at most 2 weeks if there is only a small soldering or small component placement machine used for the job.... even less time if shipped to China for hand placement and soldering.
It is therefore quite unlikely that there was a problem in Maycom's mfg'ing or their sub-vendor's mfg'ing processes or that of the PCB's mfg'ing processes, since any faults in those regards are easily and quickly rectified and reworked if necessary... within a 3 week period at the outside max.
Therefore it is more likely that there was a component functional or combination function problem among the components specfied from the batch of components procured. Such a problem could also be easily rectified by selective asm in the worst case.... which adds to the costs of mfg'ing.... i.e. lower component yields and higher labor costs. When this type of problem occurs it is most often a design problem with compatability of spec's among components. Sometimes it's a faulty component problem... i.e. the components don't meet their own spec's... in which case there are usually several equally functional alternative component suppliers to deliver components that meet the spec's... and the faulty components from the other supplier are simply returned for credit on a new order or fnds refunded. In either event of a component's failure to meet it's own spec's, it's not always easy to identify which component is failing and identifying the faulty condition in a component may entail more specialized testing than Maycom has at it's facilities... in which case they would leave the issue to be solved and rectified by Edigital... pay for another set of components and deal with the fault finding later, or deal with the fault finding first, and then rectify.... the former is expediant in time and more costs upfront, and possibly no cost recovery from the faulty components unless the co with the faulty components accepts their liability in it without argument.... not always easy to do, by the way. The latter is time consuming and full of finger-pointing, but may ultimately save money on the parts costs and mfg'ing asm costs if selective asm and testing/rework can be avoided.
Since any of the aformentioned issues are standard operating fare in any electronic's asm business anywhere in the world, the means of dealing with them are standard... and nearly always are to use an alternate supplier to circumvent a faulty component supply and deal with the costs of the faulty component issue later. Since I don't think Edig is using any components that aren't standard availability from at least 2 sources, if not more, I would be surprised if the reason for the delay related to a faulty component.
Rather, it would be more likely that the failure was one of compatability of components in their combination... a design / spec issue, not a component supplier issue....requring Edigital's engineering team to resolve. It may therefore be that the engineeering resolution by Edigital didn't work and then some finger pointing started... with Edigital refusing to pay double for the components and the component supplier holding out for Edigital's engineer's proving to the supplier that it was their parts that were at fault. In the meantime, Maycom's stuck in the middle... they can't asm without resolution of the problem, and the problem's between Edig and the component supplier or the design isn't robust enough to work with the range of allowances of the component spec's.
So, if it's a hardware problem, then it's Edig's to resolve one way or the other... and the fact that it's been over 4 months since the scheduled delivery date, means it isn't likely a hardware problem in any event... since there's been more than adequet time to resolve it by design or component supplier changes.
That leaves some kind of legal hassle... perhaps related to an infringement claim in Korea by a Korean or other country firm.
Regardless of the real reason's for the non-delivery, in any scenario I can come up with, Edigital is directly responsible for handling the resolution.... either in engineering effort or by monetary means (payments to component suppliers for better or another set of components, or to a claimant for having infringed on some patent or proprietary condition)... or both.
Perhaps somebody claimed an infringement where there is none... but that takes time to resolve in either negotiations or courts or both in any event.... and costs both time and money. If Edig could have resolved the issue by paying a license fee for infringement and then settled the infringement issue later, I think they would have done so if the license fee conditions were equal or less than their take on the gross margins.... i.e. made delivery with a zero gross margin. However, that would have made any subsequent orders unprofitable to Edigital, so they may have chosen to fight the infringement (if that's what it was) in a Korean or other coutry court, to settle the infringement issue before paying a license fee that would have made their businss of eVu's and digEplayers non-profitable.
It'll be interesting to hear the excuse given by Edigital in some future PR, but you can almost bet the reason they give will have little bearing on the real reaons. In other words, Edig will supply a part of the reason that sounds good or doesn't invoke their liability in any consequential sense, but the real reasons will be those that Edig doesn't disclose...not the one they disclose.
Entertaining it is.
BTW, & FWIW, digEcor will get substantially all the relief they're requesting in the suit with the out-of-court settlement. They hold all the critical cards and have the deepest pockets, not to mention that Edig hasn't delivered even yet on it's $800k order ... 4 months after the scheduled delivery date... well over 2x the time to place and ship an order which was scheduled for delivery by Jan 10.
Cassie... we both know this will never see the inside of the court anyway, so the discussions would better serve the interests of those invested or contemplating investments in edigital if they speculated on what the out-of-court settlement terms will be and when they'll occur relative to Edig's ability to continue marketing it's services or products.
The bag-holders are all excited about RP, Falk, et.al. getting screwed in court and the hypes are spending all their time and enery to spin the facts some way that serves Edig's interests ... both of which are misguided obfuscations of what will really transpire.
Edig has neither the time nor the money to ride this out to a court case... they have to have the means to sell stock to more dufii and help their financier's by hyping what they can to make a market for their financier's short sales... and putting this effort in the forefront as fast as they can serves their intersts best. Trying to defend against the allegations by digEcor is futile already since they've already admitted their liability in the non-delivery of 2000 units to the SEC in 2 separate 8k's.
FWIW, I already posted what I think the outcome will be and how they'll reach agreement and what terms will be on RB. The only thing left for Edig to do to placate it's shareholders and save face is file a countersuit... then settle fast, touting it's countersuit as being of more import than the suit by digEcor against it. The suit will settle shortly after the Jun30 filing date so that it's details in financial and other terms won't have to be publically disclosed until their Sep30 filing date.
Cassie - Boyer's 'intention'...
... anybody can assert anything they want as to what they intended after the fact!
Unsubstantiated 'intent' spoken after the fact is not a legal argument.... unless the court is dealing with a minor or someone legally determined to be mentally impaired.
Why don't you ask Ken Lay what his 'intentions' were while he was sucking the company's investor's. I'm sure he'd tell you it was for the investor's bests interests.
The "contemplate" statements you've referred to in another post
are the means by which the disclosable 'intentions' are described in contracts... if the intent is to be disclosed at all, then it must be in substantiatable form before or during the contract's being written.
Not all intentions are disclosed by either party to contracts, and often only those that they want the other party to the contract to understand are disclosed.... leaving out other intentions they may consider proprietary.
If, however, a contract is signed by both parties, where-in the intentions in the form of 'contemplates' are written into the contract, and it subsequently is discovered that one of the party's original unwritten intent was in direct conflict with the other party's written intent, then the party with the written intent included in the contract will always prevail in a court of law.
e.g. it is contemplated by the parties that the property will be used for the purposes of preserving original pristine and natural state of the property in perpetuity, and the basis of the sale is founded on this condition, .. when the purchaser's real intent is to turn the property over to another company/group that intends to turn it into a golf course in 10 years, and this can be shown by other facts, then the property will remain in it's natural original, natural pristine state by the court's order, OR the original purchase price shall be returned and the property revert to the ownership of the original owner.
Get it? Boyer can state whatever he wants today in court or deposition... about his then intentions ... but unless he has cooberating substantiated evidence of same, that argument holds no weight in law (unless Boyer's legally known to be short of grey matter).
Cassie, referenced to the Triad
status from your post which states:
"Seems like they completed all of the design work except digital content security that airlines would approve."
Where / what documentation have you seen that supports your assertion that they completed all the design work excepta drm that airlines would approve?
Is this a guess (educated or otherwise)? Your opinion (informed from other unstated sources or not)? I only ask because I haven't seen anything that implies this to be the case.
Cassie... on the alleged 'lawyer' response to Legal Eagle (or DB as the case may be)...
I have not ordered or read the complaint. I have read your posts related to it.
I have a comment on the alleged lawyer's response to Legal Eagle regards the statement
"The signed agreement attached also sets a $25,000 damages limitation on the DRM area, but the implication of that is not clear."
If your prior posts on the content of the complaint are even close to the facts as stated in the complaint (by which I mean only that you didn't interpret much from what was actually stated], then it was clear that the $25k liability applied to the limits of liability on the warranty returns related to the agreement on the new DRM development.
It is therefore NOT unclear by any stretch of the imagination... so it can easily be concluded that the alledged 'legal' response posted by LegalEagle was NOT from a legal source --- i.e. NOT from a Lawyer.
I submit therefore, only that that the entire post by LegalEagle is just another post by one of the cons that have been providing biased information since the get-go.
To Wit:
quite inartfully drawn... a clear opinion, with no supporting information supplied to back it up (another of the con's arts)... implying a poorly drawn complaint by a not-so-up-to-snuff legal firm... for the express purpose of giving the dufii a reason to believe or maintain hope the legal aspects of the complaint aren't going to be difficult for Edigital to argue against on it's merits... in other words, wait and see what happens (meaning don't sell your stock... the classic con game on Edig).
(not sure how that is e.Digital's fault) ... also clearly an opinion... insertion of opinion to effectively provide the readers (dufii) with reason to hope there is no Edig fault... or that the complaint offers no legal foundation for the breach of contract related to the delivery of the units involved as part of the DRM contract. The purchase by digEcor of the 2k units was part of the consideration that makes the DRM contract binding... and arguably the principle consideration involved in making the contract binding. It's a given and acknowledged fact that the units have not been deliverd (at the time the complaint was filed)... therefore any lawyer would recognize that the contract required Edig to perform on the delivery thru Maycom... Edig's supplier. Had digEcor recognized and agreed that the non-delivery was entirely and wholly thru no fault of Edigital's, and that Edigital had taken every reasonable step to rectify Maycom's culpability, then it is unlikely (my opinion) that digEcor would include this breach in the suit.
(though it is not entirely clear e.Digital has waived those rights from the complaint, and there are a number of facts yet to be elicited in support of both sides of this matter).
... this is gobbledegook... it may perhaps be more clearly worded as "not entirely clear from the complaint that e.Digital has waived these rights...." if that were the actual intended meaning of the gobbledegook parenthetical remark.... also an opinion of unfounded merit by the unmistakable use of the phrase "not entirely clear". Lawyers are nothing if they're not explicity clear in what they mean in communications.... and this parenthetically inserted remark is poorly cast as being one made by a person trained in the legal profession.
In addition, the phrase "... and there are a number of facts yet to be elicited... blah, blah" is so reduntant it's beyond belief... it's precisely why there's a legal case... facts to be elicited in court. The purpose of the con's use of this insetion is to give the dufii another reason to "wait and see" how the facts come out ... so don't sell now... wait and see. This is another use of the classic con... don't sell yet... wait and see... while I sell.
I could go on with other phrases and uses of them in the remainder of the remarks by LegalEagle, but it's overkill. The other phrases used in the remainder are equally, and even more enlightening regards the mark of a con as the author than those I've elaborated on above.
The information and posted response by LegalEagle isn't from a Lawyer... pasted in or otherwise.
Label Download Pricing
Doesn't this kind of pricing make you want to question whether the labels are going after this in a real way. This pricing makes me think it's just another means to delay content delivery by digital download. The labels, imo are still very leary of lettting this get out of their direct control. With Napster held at bay, what incentive do the labels have to embrace digital downloads... i.e. change the way their doing business now? Hey if the profit margins are high enough... they risk it... and at these prices, the margins are outa-site.... bonanza for the Labels even in low volumes.
Tinroad - My most recent response from Eastech on 3/25 indicates retail pricing for ET700 will be "around USD $399".
Have you received something since then? that quotes $300... or $200 less than what Eastech has stated on 3/25 will be $399? Sorry, if you already posted the info from Eastech, I must have missed it.
With Nomad's new $269 pricing announcement today (effectively about a $320 price with normal and probable accessories), I imagine that Eastech will drop their price by the time it ships... but thus far Eastech's number has been stated to be $399.
Sun 3/25/01 6:ll PM
From: sophia [sophia@mail.atl.com.tw]
To: xxxxxx
Subject: Re: ET700 Series
Dear xxxxxxx,
Pls find attached spec. of ET701 for your information.
Our ET700 model which has been exclusive in USA will be mass production in late May, therefore, you may carry it by early June at retial price around USD$ 499.
Should you have any queries, pls feel free to contact me.
Best regards
Sophia Liu
ATLE-IA(ATLMultimedia)
Website: www.mp3ok.com <http://www.mp3ok.com>
Email: sophia@mail.atl.com.tw <mailto:sophia@mail.atl.com.tw>
Tel: 886-3-3116686 ext 603
Fax:886-3-3119191
No Sparty, I hadn't seen this most recent IDC report.
I note however, that IDC has now pushed out the time-frame and reduced estimates of volumes compared to prior Market research estimates.... 32M units in 2003 cited in early 2000 by Edig's Falk (in his Letter to Shareholders in January of 2000 I believe) from Forrester Research. There are several volume estimates from market research firms over the past year.... basically they've reduced estimates over time and/or pushed them out in time. I posted a summary of these on CS in response to MIR's estimates of Edig's WW volumes in 2001.
I'd have to go back and pull up the data again (stored in my spreadsheet) to see how this most recent estimate by IDC compares with their previous ones. Incidentally, and I assume you are already aware of this based on your reading of my CS posts, my estimates of Edig's valuation are based on the Market Research estimates of World Wide portable player shipments over time... and my estimates of what Edig's market share in the WW market is likely to be.
Eastech ET700 & ET701 Info and a Question
I received a response (on 3/25/01) from Eastech to my queries regarding retail availability of the ET700 JB and spec's on the ET701. I posted the ET701 Specs on an RB Post today.... the spec's were sent to me in a Word.doc so I can't post them directly (or the picture of the ET701). The RB link to see the spec's I posted there is http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=EDIG&read=650926.
Availability and pricing of ET701 wasn't provided, but ET700 "may" be carried in retail outlets in June.... "mass production" expected in May. Retail pricing "around USD $499" according to Eastech.
Thus far I've seen no information, nor have I been able to find out whether either of these Eastech JB players has Edig's mOS or microCAM in them... or even whether they are licensed from the Edig reference design. So, at this point any inference relating either of these JB players to Edigital is just that.... inference or expectations or hope. My question though is whether anybody else has been able to find out whether either of these Eastech JB players contains Edig's mOS or microCAM software for Edig's per unit or bulk license revenue stream? Other than the Edig announcement for the license arrangement with Eastech at CES, is there any other information available which would relate either of these 2 players to Edigital revenue stream in fact?