It's going to lie in the subtle but important claims...not the broad.

Exactly - and I think you’ve stated such before. I’m just not so certain that the patented methods you study and are so familiar with are going to be so easy for them to prove infringement. I see them going after the low-hanging fruit first strictly from a business/practical standpoint. Lawyers are going to want a high probability payoff. Later perhaps they’ll have the desire and funding to pursue additional claims.

There also seem to be some inconsistencies in the company’s past statements. As I was just reminded, they state they believe their file management/flash memory claims are fundamental and valuable. In other statements, they’ve made a key reference to the importance of the ‘774 patent - which doesn’t include those properties.

I don’t know - maybe they’re going after everything at once. If it were me, I’d prioritize based not just on the perceived value, but on the scope, strength and provability of the claim, and likelihood that infringers would pay without a big fight. The patents are important, but they’re second to the realities and demands of business.

As an aside, in PTSC’s case, I don’t recall anyone just rolling over until they actually filed suit against some of the biggies (I thing there were five companies initially). While it never went to court, they had to prove they were serious first. I doubt anyone licenses e.Digital’s tech right off the bat - just because they asked nicely.

- Sinkman