silicon:
Almost missed your response since you did not respond directly. But here I is.
IF the issue is the failure to disclose the Cablelabs' cease and desist letter, then the issue is whether the letter was itself material.
Well, first of all the issue is CANNOT solely be limited to the letter since the letter is representative of the culmination of a series of correspondence between CableLabs and TERN regarding inclusion of S-CDMA into a DOCSIS certification. Without unnecessarily complicating this matter, at issue IN THE LETTER is not only the true nature of S-CDMA's status with DOCSIS, but also the affirmative conduct by TERN officials to misrepresent that true nature to the public. This is the rationale behind the cease and desist letter, if you've read it. I can't see how you can diverse the letter itself from the substance it represents. What is really at issue IN THE MATTER, if you've read any of my preceding posts, is the materiality of the CONTENT of the letter, and all PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE leading up to its issuance, to an investor.
However, If Cablelabs' effectively retracted it, then I fail to see the argument that the disclosure of the retracted letter was material.
What are you talking about? What "effective" retraction? You think CableLabs has "effectively" retracted its cease & desist letter? How so? I really think your grabbing straws here.
If, on the other hand, the issue is whether the TERN sCDMA modem will be included in a future DOCSIS standard, that issue is clearly material.
No. That's not issue. What kind of law do you practice? Its certainly not securities, because if you do, you're fooling me bigtime.
Just curious. Do you practice law? If so, what? Are you a member of the NY bar, or some other state bar? Also, what type of engineering did you study at Princeton? My brother is a CSEE, Class of '78. Maybe you know him. |
