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 : Terayon - S CDMA player (TERN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: silicon warrior who wrote (827)	4/19/2000 3:26:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1658

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.

To: silicon warrior who wrote (827)	4/14/2004 9:07:13 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 1658

Re: "IF the issue is the failure to disclose the Cablelabs' cease and desist letter, then the issue is whether the letter was itself material. I agree that that issue is never determined from the perspective of Cablelabs. However, If Cablelabs' effectively retracted it, then I fail to see the argument that the disclosure of the retracted letter was material. 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. However, the Cablelabs letter does not reach that issue, and the second letter clearly says that it may be included. In either case, the standard is whether a reasonable investor would have considered it in his/her investing decisions." I don't know if you are with us anymore, but just thought you'd like to know the recent trial news indicates that short seller & lead Plaintiff, Cardinal Partners, initiated a letter writing campaign to Cablelabs complaining of Terayons statements, and also inserted the phony questioners into the infamous Conference Call (not to mention encouraging a Wall Street Journal reporter to write about Cardinals allegations - anonymously by request!). Hence, the statement included in Pluvia's report indicating that Cablelabs had heard such complaints before, was likely a direct result of other prior calls from same or other Cardinal Partners associates. Given that S-CDMA is now a part of DOCSIS 2.0 functionality as Terayon expected, that it is a part of the Advanced Phy (or Physical Layer) in DOCSIS 2.0, and that Terayon's subsidiary manufactures their own chips for their own DOCSIS 2.0 certified modems and CMTS units(Terayon being the first in the industry so certified), we can see that the Plaintif, purporting to represent long investors (and holding a very large short position) had itself manipulated events & manufactured allegations hoping to take TERN stock down. In point of fact, Pluvia's report included quotes from Terayon which were each followed by quotes purporting to show Terayon was actively engaged in misleading investors. We can now absolutely see (if we didn't before) that each of the qoutes from Terayon were correct save that Cablelabs chose DOCSIS 2.0 instead of DOCSIS 1.2 for the name of it's next standard(hardly the basis of a suit, you think?). Pluvia maintains there is one issue left, i.e. that TERN told investors, while knowing better, that royalties would ensue from inclusion of S-CDMA in DOCSIS. Instead, all additions to DOCSIS must be shared royalty free. Pluvia states he has recordings from meeting in which Terayon made these false claims. I've yet to see a single substantiated quote that would back up this further allegation, to my recollection. The San Fran Judge Has thrown Cardinal out of the suit, and stated publicly that Terayon Investors may well have a case against Cardinal Partners. Pluvia, on this thread, has referred to the Cardinal folks who busted up the conference call as "our guys." Dan B.