Yo Joe

I know I'm a bit late in responding to your illness and ultimate recovery. It's great to have you back. I've always been mindful of your diplomacy in dealing with the people and issues on this board. I truly admire your approach.

I'm glad you're speaking for Fred because he ain't sayin' nuttin'.:>):>). I know that a fundamental element of most settlements is that the "offending" party insists upon an NDA which essentially excludes (passively) any admission of "guilt". In that case, the plaintiff is, of course, bound by the agreement. The question I have is this. If the settlement includes the licensing of the IP, why would that not be publishable? In our case, why wouldn't EDIG insist upon that being part of the settlement....or at least not excluded? There's certainly no harm to the defendant's reputation. I don't know how many of the settlements to date include actual licensing but shoudn't we know it? As shareholders aren't we entitled to it? Why do we have to "connect the dots"? :>):>)

I uderstand that sometimes withholding information is critical to the prosecution of future or ongoing cases and, at this point, I assume that's the case with EDIG....at least I hope so.

Stay healthy.