Replies to post #78536 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[Neverending]

Norris is none the less an actual inventor just not a really all time great one that hits many home runs. His LRAD technology is an actual business with government contracts although the business is very lumpy and the stock price is hurting. I would be surprised they do not get bought out by a defense biggie its a solid product I would not buy into his PAMT directed sound spin off from LRAD but it sounds like a plausible business.

EDIGs 774 Norris patent and others are junk and unlikely to realize licenses big enough to enhance share holder value and are set to expire soon. I disagree with you on bringing in new management or board members because it wont help. If EDIG tried to press their other 445 and 108 flash R patents they will probably find themselves in new reexams and few actual infringers. I do not think there is any way to save the company they have nothing of value. They would be better off using their available cash to buy a McDonalds franchise and paying shareholders the profits in dividends.

[Cassandra]

Allen Cocumelli's conflict of interest... does it interfere with the fulfillment his fiduciary duties to EDIG shareholders?

Cocumelli is paid $5,000 a month to "manage" outside legal work (not "do" legal work, just "manage" the outside attorneys).

During fiscal 2012 the Company paid the Law Office of Allen Cocumelli, owned by director Allen Cocumelli a total of $60,000 to provide legal and consulting advice to management primarily related to managing outside legal work including patent enforcement matters. The Company has retained the Law Office of Allen Cocumelli through January 2012 at the rate of $5,000 per month for future services but the arrangement is cancellable on 30-day notice.

p. 33 http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=8683630

Although the above statement says that he has been retained through January 2012, that appears to be a typo for two reasons: (1) he was paid for 12 months in FY 2012 instead of 10 and, (2) the statement made just two weeks ago references "future" services. It appears he has been retained through Jan. 2013.

Cocumelli is the Chairman of the BOD and sits on both the compensation and audit committees. Despite the fact that his retainer could have the appearance of a quid pro quo with CEO Fred Falk to keep him employed and well-paid, no conflict of interest is disclosed. It is merely stated that he does not meet the requirements to be be considered an "independent" director.

This retainer seems excessive given that it is not for actual legal, but to perform a management function. Also, if Cocumelli manages the outside attorneys at a cost of $60,000/year, what does Fred Falk do?