Berkeley Audio Design and MQA?

Why were they not forthcoming.

Do ethics matter in Audio?

I'm disappointed that a company like Berkely,

Espousing dedication to fidelity, wouldn't have known and spoken of the false claims of MQA. My gut tells me they must have known; so shame on them.

Interesting responses. I don't "hate" Berkeley. Just disappointed.

I'll certainly "get over it :) " I did not think my post would be considered extreme. Just a little disappointed - no "hate" , not even dislike.  Disappointed,  just a little :). Just to sell dacs is my favorite answer :)  :)  We  certainly have some sensitive people here. Some bristling, itching to fight. Not me. But; I think all those working towards a " corrupt" format (pardon the pun) should be ashamed. They wanted to " control" our access and artists distribution of music. I am happy their greedy venture failed. P.S I am in a business where ethics are Paramount; and I like that :) Cheers to old fashioned honesty ...

@echolane . I concur. 

@ghasley. Not offended. Disappointed. I get business. But, just tell it like it is. "Studio sound forever" ? Hogwash. It's the developers I was offended by. Disappointed by those who new better; who should have said "this compression scheme is not all it claims; however, we will produce it for now and see where it goes." At this time customers want it so we will provide it as an optional way to listen. We'll be monitoring feedback and keep an open mind."  FWIW 

@8th-note . Your comments are interesting. Your editorializing less so.