Okay, you got me - there is a probable relationship to the Maycom debackle based on that familiar dollar figure. However, with acknowledged ignorance to all the facts, I still contend that digEcor, having made a direct payment(s) to Maycom for performance under contract, was a direct, knowing participant in the contract with Maycom, and therefore is directing its complaint to the wrong party - they should be pursuing Maycom in this regard, not EDIG. Or they should be pursuing both Maycom and EDIG - Maycom for monies/damages based on their failure, and EDIG as a consequence having received monies for product (though those monies were forwarded to Maycom), manufacturing oversight and fees for product never delivered. But in this scenario, it appears that digEcor is directing attention to the reason for Maycom`s failure to perform - and I strongly suspect that digEcor was the ``third party`` mucking things up. Though they would ``lose`` something (potentially) short term (failure to deliver digEs to their customers in a timely fashion), they would open the door to messing with EDIG (as they are now doing - potentially eliminating a competitor to their pending Triad device) AND buy time for the Traid device to come to life, all the time pointing at EDIG for the delays. Wood had better hope that there is no proof of their causing/influencing Maycom`s failure.

As for other aspects of the complaint - non-compete, DRM, etc. - this is another animal. The Maycom delivery was intended for digEcor and not competing entities.

So EDIG wasn`t ``as`` misleading in their PR, they just didn`t tell the whole story (probably due to NDA).

SGE