It was at "stake". Didn't interpret that right away. If the test had been carried out fairly and especially if part 2 had been the modulation would have been at stake. The fact that Sinclair only asked for allowing COFDM would have fallen by the wayside IMO. Bob Miller Tom Barry wrote: >I believe the modulation system was at stack, and still is if they >don't get some better receivers on the market. > >Whether the courts would decide the test was fraudulent would >probably depend upon what information Mr. Tawil and others had, or >should have had, at the time of testing and writing various >reports. I suspect many would still welcome the chance to produce >public evidence in this matter considering the subsequent >development of USA digital TV, the recent Congressional interest >and publicity, and the huge amount of money at stake here. > >So they should feel free to sue whomever they choose. Make my day! > >- Tom > >John Willkie wrote: > > > >>The modulation system in the US WAS NOT AT STAKE! You -- and others -- just >>wanted it to be at stake. The then pending Sinclair proposal was to permit >>COFDM, not require it. >> >>You cannot be believed, and in this context, using the word fraudulent is >>self-destructive; you cannot prove it, and you would be trashed in court >>were Mr. Tawil to decide to sue, and it would not be a re-argument of your >>positions. >> >>John Willkie >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Bob Miller" <bob@xxxxxxxxxx> >>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 9:11 AM >>Subject: [opendtv] Re: First look at ATSC HD Broadcast >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.