Jtdiii, 

I might have an explanation for you.  As you pointed out from Document 92 written by EDIG’s Utah lawyers: 

“101-105. e.Digital denies the allegations of paragraphs 101 through 105 and alleges that the 2002 NDA is ambiguous, unreasonably broad in time and scope, and lacking proper consideration; and, therefore, the 2002 NDA is void and unenforceable.”

I found the following paragraph in the Jan 2007 ruling by the Court with regard to the DRM Agreement:

“In construing a contract, the intention of the contracting parties is controlling.”32 “If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties’ intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law.”33 However, a contract may be ambiguous because it is unclear, it omits terms, or “‘the terms used to express the intention of the parties may be understood to have two or more plausible meanings.’”34 “In determining whether a contract is ambiguous the court is not bound to consider only the language of the contract [but] any relevant evidence must [also] be considered.”35 If the Court deems a contract to be ambiguous, “there is a factual issue as to what the parties intended”, and the Court may not rule as a matter of law.36

Since the Court has already said an ambiguous contract may not be ruled on, it appears to me EDIG’s lawyers are trying to convince the Court that the 2002 NDA is ambiguous.  It certainly could be understood to have two or more meanings.  Did it pertain to Alaska Airlines or all airlines?   Was Boyer’s “confidential information” just a business opportunity or did it include a design for the player?  Paragraph 6 reads, NON-COMPETITION: RECEPIENT agrees not to compete with APS, Inc directly or indirectly during the term of this agreement and for seven years after the termination of this agreement… It is unclear to me how either party is supposed to know when the agreement terminates as there’s no termination date given or language explaining the termination.  

If EDIG’s lawyers are successful, this would leave digEcor between a BIG rock and a VERY hard place.