laws. The plaintiffs may not simply seize upon disclosures made later and allege that they should have been made earlier. Denny v. Barber, 576 F.2d 465, 470 (2d Cir.1978); In re Ramada Inns Sec. Litig., 550 F.Supp. 1127, 1132 (D.Del.1982) (typical “fraud-by-hindsight” suit alleges that information concerning impending misfortune or its root causes was omitted from earlier management publications despite fact that management then knew information). Especially where, as here, a product is understood to be in development, plaintiffs may not assert merely that, because the product did not come out when projected, plans for an earlier release were false. Cf. In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., 886 F.2d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 3229, 110 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990) (<HOLDING>). On March 18, 1988, Lotus announced that
recognizing difference between defendants knowing that product may run into snags and knowing it has already developed problems so significant as to require months of delay recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel holding that eight months and ten days of delay was not an unreasonable period of delay to attribute to a codefendant under  3161h7 recognizing difference in elements between offense of actual entry and attempted entry holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect