As you know, I don't post here much, and I don't intend to vary from that, but a number of fellow shareholders have asked that I offer a comment on NDAs.
Difficult though it would be to accept that even prior conditions warranted NDAs that went to the extent of precluding the mere fact of licensing/settlement, those conditions have now changed. Whereas prior and even some of the more recent deals were made under the burden of the collateral estoppel ruling from the Colorado case and the absence of claims contstructions in our existing litigation, the former has been reversed and the latter has been announced as being fully in EDIG's favor.
These differences are game-changers, and for EDIG to continue to kow-tow to defendants and agree to refrain from announcing the mere fact of licensing is downright ridiculous (and that's the kindest term I can think of). Such announcements, i.e., absent the details of the settlement, are very common in patent cases --- even PTSC, with its weak and non-shareholder-oriented management, and its "business partner", Alliacense, have usually issued PRs announcing the mere fact of new license agreements.
I do hope that those of you who have contact with Mr. Falk can and will have further discussion with him in this regard. It is simply not true that NDAs to this extent are standard practice in the patent industry. As merely one example, see WILN --- while its stock price has continued to lag for other unrelated reasons, the Company has issued a PR for each and every licensing deal, sans details, over the last several years. Many other companies do so as well, for the simple reason that it is, in fact, commonplace. EDIG simply needs to develop some intestinal fortitude in this aspect of negotiations.
Just my two cents as an attorney. Happy New Year and good luck to all.
