Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : e.Digital Corporation(EDIG) - Embedded Digital Technology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Tara who wrote (10827)	2/6/2000 7:45:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18366

By the way, I received a reply from Thomas Kupper of the SD Union-Tribume. I respect the fact he got back to me, as I hit him pretty hard with my criticisms. Here's the text: From Thomas Kupper: Thanks for the feedback. I should point out that we have already done the kind of article you suggest on e.Digital's technology and partners. [NOTE: Unfortunately, Mr. Kupper gave me a link which doesn't work--anyone know about what he references?] uniontrib.com trib.com..80+Union-Tribune+Union-Tribune+Library+Library++%28e.digital%29 I think you have a good point that this theme of Internet threads impacting a stock is a broader issue than e.Digital. We focused on e.Digital for two obvious reasons: 1) it is a particularly dramatic case given the high market cap and the awesome number of posts on Raging Bull and 2) it is a local company. Perhaps we will pursue a more global story on the issue in the future. I don't want to get into a debate on the outlook for e.Digital, but I think the SEC filings speak for themselves. It's true that most young tech companies have quite a bit of gloomy language in their 10K's, but not many healthy companies that I've seen have their accountants say they doubt the company will survive. Of course, it's still certainly possible that Micro-OS will do quite well, as I said in my article. If it lives up to the expectations the shareholders seem to have, we will have a big story. Either way, the company obviously has gotten our attention and we will continue to follow it closely. Again, I appreciate feedback, both good and bad. I hope we'll be able to discuss EDIG some more when another opportunity to do a story arises. Thomas Kupper San Diego Union-Tribune -----Original Message----- To: thom.kupper@uniontrib.com Subject: Deeply Disappointed by Your Writing--EDIG! Mr. Kupper: Below is my Silicon Investor and RagingBull response to your one-sided writing on eDigital. Clearly, there was no 50-50 balance in your methadology of reporting. Perhaps you're unaware that EDIG investors are locked deeply in a battle with shorters who've organized a campaign specific against eDigital. Or perhaps you do know this. However, if helping them was an intention behind your article, do know you've succeeded and that it's possible some innocent investors could become harmed from the fodder you've provided the shorters who done nothing but outright lie, bash and distort the quality of eDigital. Here are my criticisms as articulated in Silicon Investor Post 10368 of the eDigital thread: "I think the San Diego Union-Tribune's Tom Kupper made a big mistake highlighting just eDigital in his article. It seemed his theme was more about how Internet stock discussions threads can impact the share price of a stock. Thus, he should have referred to several stocks, not just eDigital. "I don't know how many risk assessments of SEC reports Mr. Kupper has read in his career as a journalist. But it sure doesn't appear as if he's aware of the gloomy and doomy stuff which appears in most of 'em, not just eDigital's. That's exactly what a risk assessment is all about, and it's required by law that a company via its SEC filings indicate potential worst case sceanios. Mr. Kupper should have noted this. "But I think Kupper's greatest failure--and this is serious--was how little he emphasized eDigital's patented technology and its implications. Indeed, Kupper also short shrifted the company by his failure to provide just due to eDigital's business relationships with the likes of IBM, Lucent and Texas Instruments and others, and the true gravity of what potential relationships in the future might be like. And, of course, it's precisely this reason why investors are so excited about the company. "It almost seems, by the slant of his writing, that Kupper is aligned with elements of that other San Diego company involved in downloadable music from the Internet. But, whatever his motivation, he sure doesn't appear to appreciate the value of eDigital, the contributions of its employees and its potential position in future markets. "He didn't write much about the company's prospects of returning to Nasdaq. Is this not also relevant? I think so. This fact also weighs heavily on why an investor would get behind the company at its recent trading levels. That we are viewing eDigital as a close in the future Nasdaq stock, that we don't believe it'll trade a lifetime on the OTC:BB market. "Again, if Kupper wanted to write about how a stock discussion thread can impact a company's share price he should have done so generically, using eDigital as an example among several companies. Were I Fred Falk or Robert Putnam, I'd have the the San Diego Union-Tribune's publisher and editor's respective telephones, fax machines and email boxes buzzing real soon. "In my view, Mr. Kupper needs a better education as to what's really going on regarding both the technology and the business relationships of the company." Once again, Mr. Kupper, I'm deeply disappointed by your writing. And this has to do not so much with what you included as it does with what you left out. In effect, your writing lowballed the reality. Sincerely, (name delted) (aka PartyTime)