We've had another look at the PR..... What doesn't it say? Does it limit the topics to be discussed to the two specifics (?) they mention? Or are they free to address much more, but didn't/couldn't telegraph whatever more they have to say, perhaps about things expected to come to fruition by the time of the CC?

We have the recent settlement with TEAC. It is my understanding that the legal team representing TEAC also represents other litigants. Common sense (assuming it is applicable) suggests that if the legal team advised one client to settle, they would be doing likewise with others.

But here IMO we must remember that this whole game resolves around assessment of RISK. Each client has a different circumstance, and a different "set".

But IMO, if the intent were to include licensing announcements in the CC, this would not be disclosed in the PR, for strategic reasons if nothing else. Especially if those licenses were "pending". But the CC would be an appropriate forum to disclose - even during trading hours since all shareholders have been put on notice and have a supposed "equal opportunity".

Of course the above, somewhat utopian thought process is subject to the disclosure issues of Chapter I.

The bottom line in all of this is that I cannot see how the CC will be bad, and find it far more likely to be good - perhaps on several fronts.

What I find truly amazing is the lack of trading volume in anticipation. But here I warn that I only recently bought back into EDIG, and in a small way. My buy was based on the TEAC news, pre CC announcement. But the CC announcement compounded my interest and hope for near term gain.

The entire novel could be considered hype, I suppose, though (as I already said) I went out of my way to try and keep it balanced, and to be reasonable in projecting my attitude.

FWIW,

SGE