e.Digital

LL-

I did review the definition of LIBEL and found I was correct in my understanding as it applied to the tone of your posts and the conversation that was ongoing regarding the company not providing us, the 'common' shareholder, with anything but 'canned answers' to e-mailed questions.

Now it's true that a few of the Agora posters here attended the last SHM, and reported that there were two names listed that the company has not published as being 'potential' (or otherwise) infringers. Unless I am mistaken, still no official news has been released by EDIG these companies have been identified as such. Oh, we have the word and memory of the attendees (To those who attended and reported the names... I'm not saying any attendee was lying, or deceiving the forum here... just that the *official* word from the company, based on PRs, has been only 7 (8 with Vivitar) companies have been named).

And while I have no idea what motivates some of the investors here to buy EDIG stock, if the investor basis a trade execution on a statement from the company which the company knows at the time to be incorrect (or a reasonable expectation that the 'plan' would not be executed as stated, based on not-yet-made-public information) that investor could potentially have a cause for action for any real losses.... as well as management having to endure an investigation and the legal fees associated with defending against an investigation.

Legal strategies can change at any time, for any reason, including a possible settlement resulting in a tender offer. Even just 'mentioning a number of planned filings', IF there is a possibility of a buyout, would create an 'expectation' in the investment community regardless of which side of the trade you would be on. For example, we could substitute EDIG with let's say some shortable Nasdaq stock. A short seller sees a typical trading pattern of the price going UP on the announcement that a company 'plans' to file suit' or actually DOES file suit, then the price suffers a 'lack of interest' decline (sound familiar?). Not a bad trading strategy, if played correctly. Now this same company has said ..'plan to file'.. when they knew that a buyout was in the works and the price offered was significantly higher than the 52WH. How many lawyers do you think would be looking to file a class action against "...certain directors and officers of the company..." ..."for making misleading statements"... when there was NO plan reasonably expected to follow through on the statement of "filing additional suits" against alleged infingers?

Finally, you said "Your last sentence about tender negotiations being affected by a libel action is nonsense. Such comments are not libel (I think maybe you should look up the definition of libel) and there is no hint of any tender offer being made. I'm not sure what you are talking about regarding a company being mentioned in a PR absent litigation being implemented - did someone suggest that? I know I didn't."

My posted stated "I can only imagine the damage caused by the libel suits that would be filed if a specific (infringing, in context) company WAS mentioned in a company PR (emphasis added) without a legal suit filed (emphasis added again)..."

Well, I did review the definition of "libel" and here's what I found:

libelAn untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Libel is a tort (a type of civil wrong), and the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel and slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media), are both considered forms of defamation.

Now let me ask you, in the context as I clearly stated in my post that stated concerns about possible suits that could be filed IF a specific company was mentioned in a PR (and it was disseminated via the internet, or other 'broadcast media').

The company mentioned in the PR claimed they were NOT infringing, without an ALLEGATION being brought forth before a court to decide the truthfulness and validity of the claim. Would the company that was alleged to have infringed be quick to file a suit to reclaim its standing and reputation in the community? I'm sure you have seen the replies that the defendants in a case such as the type EDIG brings usually have some prepared statement that "...we deny these allegations of infringement, and will vigorously defend our position that we do not infringe on" ..blah, blah, blah.

So yes, "outing" a company with the originator's knowledge that the company "outed" will possibly not need to be named as a potential defendant based on personal, inside knowledge of a hypothetical offer currently in negotiations (as was in my context) would create a potential LIABILITY that would very easily derail any possible tender offer.

After all, WHO would want to buy any company that made such a wreckless statement against another (accusing it of stealing the company's technology) thus injuring that other company's reputation in the community... and their bringing forth legal retribution for such 'wreckless statements'?

Your 'solution'

" 'We plan to file additional actions in the double digit range within 45 days, absent any exigent circumstances with curent actions.' That should be bland enough for you."

Isn't the 'blandness' of this reply, or canned repl(ies) what you are complaining about in the first place? What would that reply mean? 10? 16? 23? 99? Which companies? How much in annual revenues? What "current actions"?

Why not just "We are pursuing strategies that we believe will be best for shareprice appreciation for all shareholders? How would that be for a reply? (RP.. I'm available for hire, if you are wondering... lol)

I think someone else recently noticed that a few months ago, the company was stating that they were 'expecting' further legal filings, but has noticed lately that language has been missing or modified. To whomever noticed this, thumbs for you. Whether it means something or not who knows?