zippity: One of my frustrations is that when people speak with RP, they come back and report things he said as fact without giving factual support. You said...
"As for embedded systems EDIG did develop the embedded system."
Is that what RP told you or is that truly factual based on substantial evidence you independently obtained? If it is simply what RP said, then please state that as people know to take that with a grain of salt - (e.g. he said EDIG developed the embedded system).
100% of the objective public record shows that the "embedded" digeplayer displayed at WAEA was created by Inflight Canada and APS and was displayed by Inflight Canada in their booth (along with a model for a Thales Avionics solution, which was later chosen). There is not one shred of public evidence that e.Digital had anything to do with it and certainly not that they "unveiled" it.
I don't understand why people continue to take RP at his word. If it were me, I would not simply accept his claim that e.Digital "developed" the installed device. I would repeatedly challenge him to specifically explain why all public information (articles, etc.) points to Inflight Canada and NOT to e.Digital. I would also insist that he explain why there was no mention of Inflight Canada whatsoever in their September 04 PR when the device was clearly unveiled by Inflight Canada. Additionally why none of the public record mentions e.Digital.
Perhaps it is because you seem to have accepted the first statement as fact that you are confused as to why RP won't comment about royalties. If you could not substantiate the first statement, then there is no confusion why he won't talk about revenue from the device. There probably is none.
Keep in mind that e.Digital did not report substantial NRE fees in either QE 9/30 nor 12/31 to verify that they were paid to design this. Nor have they ever stated thay they would receive either NRE fees or revenue from this device. They simply stated that they "unveiled" it with APS. Period. The rest has been innuendo through private communication with individual shareholders.
IMO, if you want facts, you need to go back to him and establish specifically what role e.Digital has had and will have in this device and NOT accept any of his over-ranging innuendo.
In other words, pin him down and get him to talk about the role of Inflight Canada vs. e.Digital and why it was that e.Digital made a public statement that they unveiled the installed device. Get him to substantiate the PR with facts that can be verified. Do not accept answers that contradict the public record.
If Putnam wou't give you a straight answer (which is likely) then call Inflight Canada directly and ask them what role e.Digital played in the device they built and "unveiled" at their booth. Their website is www.inflightcanada.com
Once again, even with CAL_LAW threatening (actually demanding) to have the company sue me, I reiterate that I believe the September PR was false and misleading. Furthermore I do not believe that e.Digital has or could have a revenue-generating role in the "embedded" digeplayer just unveiled by APS/Wencor and had no real role in the model displayed at WAEA.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
