Curtis,
I've read it before, natch. It's a good summary if you wish to leave out much of TERN's side of the story, IMO. It also scarcely touches on the issues of S-CDMA and TDMA. As for the suits, it does offer some info. relevant to them. Note this writer found that a Cablelabs Rep. said Tern made comments that are "not strictly inaccurate," and that Cablelabs said its letter to TERN concerning potentially misleading comments(IMO, too) was "confidential." Note that Zaki Rakib, Ceo of TERN (who I'll add is, IMO, a verbally fumbling/stumbling non-native English speaking person), says the intent of Tern's statements was to include(or imply) "potential" for Docsis inclusion. It is fairly ludicrous, IMO, to presume that Terayon would intend to publicly lie concerning its position with the Cablelabs industry standards body.
Adding these several notions together tells me that not only did Terayon not believe it had intended to deceive, but that it did not suspect any public charges of such to occur. Also, Terayons potential to get S-CDMA placed as a part of the DOCSIS standard was not rescinded before or during the "class period" defined in the suits. Hence, there was no reason for the company to suddenly consider a need to put a hold on insider selling in light of inside information- and in fact there was no pattern of an increase in overall inside selling taking place during the "class period". Hence there is likely no credible basis for the "class period" of the lawsuits, IMHO.
Some from SI who may have been aware prior to the general public, of lawsuits and specific firms bringing them, have made false claims concerning Terayons products.
Terayon offers non-proprietary Docsis certified modems for sale. Pluvia falsely based his "Pluvia Investment Securities" official research report short sale recommendation in substantive part, on his claim that Terayon solely offers proprietary S-CDMA for sale- which is immediately verifiably false. Regardless of other opinions of my above analysis, everyone of any character, IMO, should immediately denounce Pluvia for this whenever commenting on the subject- thus distancing themselves from his actions. I think Pluvia's best course would have been to publicly claim an "error" long ago.
Freedom works,
Dan B |
