RE: Re Re: NASDAQ19 Oct 2020 01:20
In the case of Yume's takeover by R1, there is no logic that makes sense of trying to speculate on the historical facts to produce a different outcome, however it may be wished, or for whatever reasons, we are where we are.
As for Edelman's blog, Luxor Capital Group, Blau GmbH, Jericho Capital Asset Management, Valiant Capital Management and Oxford Asset Management, all benefited after a blog ( The Darker Side of Blinkx) was posted by a Harvard Business School professor, Benjamin Edelman, which triggered a share price plunge.
Edelman was later made to reveal, by Harvard Business School, that two businesses sponsored his research.
HBS pushed Edelman into this disclosure to prevent them from being accused of allowing a conflict of interests situation to be encountered.
The type of low-end revenue alleged by Edelman to be operated by Blinkx at the time was unlikely to have contributed, in any meaningful way, to the bulk of Blinkx's revenues, which Edelman thought were too high by his reckoning.
An insight into Blinkx’s Core revenue generating model, should have been undertaken by Edelman before making his implied accusations an issue for Blinkx’s integrity, as he did in his report.
Edelman made a request for Blinkx to make a categorical denial – no adware, by any name, directly or through any subsidiary.
A good headline grabber but what did Edelman mean by “adware”? Adware is actually legitimate and only becomes illegitimate when it becomes “malware”.
Edelman did not make that differentiation and attempted to make a case that Blinkx was probably acting illegally.
The request was probably impossible for Blinkx to refute entirely.
'To what extent is adware being deployed to defraud others, by Blinkx alone', would have been a legitimate question to be answered.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
