<you both may be right about what you were told>
Hi Kelly-
For the record, *I* wasn't told anything. My source was an AMTX/SI post referencing "Infrastructure" (whose June issue, BTW, it was announced just came out).
<I'd believe Pat reported truthfully what she heard from RC>
Maybe she will tell us what *exactly* she heard from RC, and what she then further "interpreted". It could be that THAT was a source of discrepancy in her report here.
<I also believe Tac may have quoted the "company line", which could appear to contradict RC.>
Any license contract will have a date.
Pat represented (and CONTINUES to represent) that the ADI/AMTX license is done. SOMEONE was incorrect when Amati clearly denied Pat's previous report. Now I don't see how (or why) a company spokesperson would represent one thing (NO signed contract) when in fact there was one. It seems they would have said (to avoid legal problems) "no comment". But Tac distinctly said (according to the Infrastructure reporter who asked him) there was no contract. This leaves little room for interpretation error.
Maybe Pat should have said she heard there could be contract coming, and that it seems likely to occur, but that nothing is signed as yet. And in doing so, in needing to be responsible (unless she REALLY knew, which it seems she did NOT), she would also need to refrain from her "hints, nudges and winks", which imply that she KNOWS more than she can tell, but will leave to others to read the obvious between her lines.
<Unfortunately, this will probably result in a meeting in JS's office to shut down non-official channels of communication.>
Clearly unfortunate, if this does occur, but it likely COULD have been avoided with a more cautious, understated approach in reporting here.
Just my opinions. And thanks for your coments Kelly.
Regards-
Steve |
