e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[Cassandra]

Sentinel: My point is that it is
e.Digital that has continuously created false expectations for its shareholders as "expected" shipping dates of other company's products. These "expectations" did NOT come from public announcements by the other companies involved.

There have been no public announcements by Eclipse as to a date of availability of the HD1213 (not even at CES), yet EDIG keeps announcing expected shipping dates to its shareholders that repeatedly turn out to be false and have now been pushed to the "next quarter" 5 times.

If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't see a problem. However, since setting expectations that are not met is definitely an issue endemic to EDIG, I see a clear pattern of deliberately setting false expectations IMO.

Please take note of the following:

- It was e.Digital, not Maycom that announced the shipping to the MP2000.

- It was e.Digital, not EASTECH that announced that a player licensing MOS would be launched.

- It was e.Digital, not Remote Solution/Hango, that announced an EDIG-based player called Cleo would be produced and sold.

- It was e.Digital, not HyTek, that announced to EDIG shareholders when the Treo was expected to ship. HyTek's Treo web site was non-committal.

- It was e.Digital, not APS, that gave a shipping date of 1st calendar quarter of 2003 and kept pushing the date out until the 3rd quarter of 2003. Now we learn that it was pushed to the 4th quarter of calendar 2003.

All of these false "expected" shipping by dates were given to EDIG investors by e.Digital management and were never supported by public comments from the companies involved.

Did EDIG management have reliable facts upon which to base the expectations they set for their shareholders? The company and ardent longs seem to want to blame misinformation from the other companies involved. However, those companies never published any public information that supported what EDIG management was claiming.

So, what's the deal? Where 100% of the companies that EDIG was dealing with leading them on, or was EDIG management making statements to shareholders that were not backed up with facts?

I am convinced that EDIG was creating shareholder expectations based on wild hopes rather than facts backed up by the companies that EDIG was dealing with.