LL,
Your second paragraph restates what I said. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
In a public forum, I accuse XXX of infringing my patents. I publish a PR stating such. I don't back up my allegations with a suit or legal challenge to establish legal proof of my allegations. THE DEFINITION OF LIBEL.
I accuse XXX of infringing my patents. I publish a PR stating such, and bring a suit in a court to legally establish my contention and claim of XXX stealing my patented technology. Win or lose, NOT LIBEL since a patent holder has a legal right to enforce a patent held under reasonable belief the patent was infringed. Frivolous claims are and have been excepted from this 'free pass'.
As for taking the thread way out to "some far distant galaxy", I am simply offering a hypothesis (a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.)
Don't lawyers, in general, dwell on small details so that those details don't blow up into large problems in the future?
I don't think DM got to be as large and well regarded as they are by ignoring 'the small details', no matter how "out there" they may be. They likely assign a "PoP" (Probability of Percentage) such a detail could result in an intended or unintended result, and act on that PoP. (75% sound familiar?)
I think the problem with much of the population today is that they expect to know every detail of what they feel is important in a strategy, whether it is in the court in our case; or leaking national security policy, battle plans, and interrogation techniques. This conditioning of the population has been partly brought upon by a press that doesn't seem to think that even the most gravest of national secrets be kept a secret in order to satisfy some misguided policy of the people's (enemy's) right to know strategy.
An investor here should
- Know the patents, and what they cover (in layman's terms, not necessarily to the in depth that some of our accepted tech gurus have).
- Know DM and their lexus to "Markman" hearings.
- Know what the Markman is.
- Know the history of the Digecor suit.
- Know about the agreement between DM and EDIG, and how much EDIG will collect its share of any settlements (percent).
- be willing to accept that at any point, the patents could be found to be worthless and the ramifications of this possibility.
- Also be willing to accept wild fluctuations (in price and percent) of the value of the investment based upon little or no volume as the OTCBB is known for.
- Not have more than he is willing to lose at any given point in the stock.
- Take any information here which has not come directly from the company as heresay or conjecture only (including everything I post).... unless backed up by other established FACTS (SEC filings, PACER filings, official PR's, etc.)
Armed with that knowledge, I couldn't care if the strategy is ever made public. All I look at is: Is the current strategy working? Well, 7 for 7 so far, it seems to be fine with me.
As for the investors expecting some sort of guidance: Here's my opinion on why we don't see more.
EDIG at this point is solely producing any relevant revenues / profits as a result of legal actions. Forget about IFE until the resolution of the digEcor case... which could still be years away IF (IMO) BOW doesn't change his stripes. IF the case comes down to where the court rules so overwhelmingly in eDigital's favor that there isn't even an UNREASONABLE expectation that BOW could prevail on appeal then MAYBE he will finally accept he never had a case to begin with. (again, all IMO)
Since the only revenues EDIG is producing is a direct result of a strategy best left to a firm that has taken the case on their dime, perhaps it makes since to leave that strategy in their hands, and not for public consumption. Again, forget IFE until we get an overwhelming victory in the current case digEcor v eDigital.
I would "expect" an update on guidance regarding IFE only AFTER this case is resolved. Until then, I expect more of the same "canned response" regarding current strategy.
Anyway, that's my opinion. To paraphrase Johnny Carson, Take it or don't. Either way, I'm comfortable in my position here.
