Secondly, in answer to you question:

``The ``Does`` are defendents, not plantiffs. How could airlines - digEcor customers - be defendents in a contract dispute between digEcor and EDIG? ``

I think it was Wolfy`s post that said or made me think that the airlines may be defendents if they have somehow contracted to be using the new player ( that doesn`t mean they have to give up using the digEplayer? ) which Digecor may not like or think of as an inroad to their turf. So in other words if you use or competitor`s product we are going to sue you. It is just a thought at this point because I don`t know if other airlines or the same ones have signed on to use the eVU ( maybe this is one reason that they have not or will not place orders? Maybe they have and are thus being named to nip the competition in the bud. Atul seemed to indicate to me at the SHM that the new product is different enough, but anyone can sue if they want) So it is just a thought and question and I am glad for the discussion. Does anyone know if someone or more airlines have signed to use the eVU? The product was listed on a WAEA site a few months ago as a product in the market place from EDIG.

Thirdly; ``And it can`t be about IP, because it`s a contract dispute (not patent infringement)`` I was trying to indicate that beyond this suit and issue, I am interested in EDIG being able and going ahead with an IP suit against infringers( as PTSC has done with TPL ) . I would be more interested and feel better if we all were discussing EDIG having done that. I would still ( I think ) like to have the suit posted so we can know exactly what it is all about rather than just speculate. Even though some speculation here on this site has proven to be rather accurate. GLTAL... I know there is always more to know...