Mr. Pocari:
You wrote:
...Can anybody here prove that so much as one word that the Company has said about its technology is not accurate?
The following statement, quoted directly from the the Company's press release - as written - is fraudulent.
...Its proprietary software enables users to transmit at 155 million bits per second over a single T1 line at 1.544 million bits per second, i.e., up to 103.3 times faster than a single T1 line...
The statement - as written - states that the software some how changes the inate bit rate characteristic of a T1 line to that of an OC-3 circuit. The bit rates of these circuits are standardized. These circuits are provisioned and controlled by common carriers who do not permit an end-user to manipulate the underlying technical protocols. Nor can software change physical laws.
Notwithstanding the fact that the foregoing statement is clearly fraudulent, if one was to give the Company the benefit of the doubt, one could postulate that the press release was written by a technical illiterate; someone with no ability to differentiate between base bit rates and delivered payload of content (assuming for the sake of argument that the Company has compression technology which provides such payload throughput - as a general statement almost assuredly fraudulent, perhaps possible under the most controlled and contrived circumstance.)
However ignorance is no excuse and does not mitigate the violation of Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act.
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange...
b.To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, ...
law.uc.edu
On its face the PR is false. Even if rewritten to generally discuss a compression tool with such performance characteristics, it would almost assuredly still be misleading under 10b-5(b). Assuming the Company has data to back up their claim, then the underlying data to support the said claim would have to be included - the original file size, the file content etc. - but then even the most naive investor could then see through the smoke and mirrors; which makes putting out a PR rather pointless, don't you think?
ww |
