chuck329: Thank you for affirming the validity of my main points...
1) e.Digital granted DM the right to refuse to file litigation against any target other than the "first target" (Vivitar) and still maintain a substantial lien for 400% of its accumulated costs, 300% of its time and 15% of a good faith estimate of the value of the patents,
2) e.Digital, not DM, is responsible to provide and pay for for all technical documentation for patent litigation, and also that
3) it is 100% up to DM to decide whether or not to file litigation against any infringement target suggested by EDIG.
------
Although I was referring to statements made in EDIG press releases about their so-far perpetually never-quite-ready (still being finalized) documentation to "support" additional claims, I see that you were able to cite a statement from the 10-Q wherein e.Digital does indeed claim an "expectation" of filing additional patent actions prior to 3/31/08.
I had not read that in the 10-Q, but, as you no-noubt know, it's extremely unusual for EDIG to have a more optimistic claim in its SEC filings than in its PRs.
Let's see if they actually meet that expectation. If they do, that's great and I will acknowledge it. However, I have my doubts. "Expect" has probably been the most abused forward-looking weasel terminology employed by e.Digital, followed closely by "we believe" and "soon." I have long declared such words as "Putnamese."
You usually seem to have a good grasp of what's contained it the SEC filings. However, it's interesting that I never see you correct clear errors that are slanted toward promoting a positive view of the stock.
For example, DB's recent false claim about shares held by Ds&Os (claiming that the numbers he posted didn't include unexercised options when they clearly did) as well as his other frequent positively slated "errors." I have believed for years that they are intentional because he knows he will never be challenged on the vast majority.
To be honest, I have wondered if you are actually Putnam, Falk or some other EDIG employee. The majority of your posting activity is to counter cautionary or negative posts, instead of being a purveyor of DD or even an accuracy analyst regarding posts of both points of view. I might be more persuaded by your posts if you had even a semblance of fervor for correcting the many inaccuracies on the EDIG stock promotion side.
IMO, EDIG investors have done themselves a great disservice by isolating their discussions on the agoracom forum, which actually promotes and brags about its extensive and easy censorship of unfavorable information.
Chuck, if you think a post on the EDIG iHub forum contains significant incorrect information, you are able to post any correction you think is relevant -- a right of which you often avail yourself, unfortunately only if you think the incorrect info is not positive for the stock.
However, if anyone other than the long-term accepted members on agoracom sees significant incorrect information posted there, they are either blocked from posting a challenge or correction, or their posts and accounts are quickly deleted retrospectively.
This means that EDIG investors who participate or lurk on what's now its main message board (agoracom) have become even more sheltered from hearing the whole story, including major risk factors to their investment.
AI
