"RP stated that the patents were different then PTSC and made it sound as if the enforcment would be quicker than PTSC..."

IMO, he's dreaming if he honestly thinks enforcement would be quicker. PTSC's patents have to do with hardware - tangible, it's either there or it isn't, and device performance can reveal infringement. EDIG's patents have to do with software - intangible, and for processes where alternatives exist. EDIG does have one patent that is cited more "generally" than the others, but then it becomes an issue of interpretation (e.g., what is "recording"?, and vs. re-recording?).

"if PTSC rose to $2 on patents infringement with no product...what say you??". While we believe the eVU is a viable product, it really shouldn't be considered such until they sell a lot of them - so this IMO, is a "maybe has a product". PTSC had some settlements by respected companies before that run. How long till EDIG sees any money? Progress is good, prospects may be good. But how long did it take PTSC? Settlements in their pocket from AMD, Intel, HP, Fujitsu, Sony and others before they saw $2 (AMD and Intel a full year before). I'm afraid some here are getting way ahead of themselves, IMO. Not that it won't come, just don't expect it in the next two weeks, or possibly two years. Do you really think the announcement of the true start of a litigation process will provide a sustained higher PPS? PTSC dipped TO some 2-3 cents AFTER it was known that litigation was underway, and AFTER settlements from AMD and Intel. If you use PTSC as a metric.... Again, caution IMO.

And I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE