Because, as stated, or implied, in Doc 96 that Ferguson signed the original NDA with Boyer "ALMOST" soley due to Boyer's "patent pending" device, as described by him.

In other words Ferguson, etal, were convinced APS was bringing something to the table as his part of the bargain when in fact Boyer "BOYER BROUGHT NOTHING TO THE TABLE" and he LIED through his teeth about it.

As I have said in a prior post, if it is normal company policy, as described in Doc 96 by EDig's lawyers and a policy that is regularly followed not only by EDig but a normal procedure for other companies, to sign a "PRELIMINARY" NDA to ascertain if the other company (APS) has anything to offer (EDig) and to protect the other companies (APS) technology or unique ideas, then should not that company (EDig) find out "Before" signing that contract (NDA) some evidence of the truthfulness of the other companies (APS) position.???

One would not have to see all the details of Boyer's "patent pending" device, just the paperword or some other proof that he had indeed filed for a patent.

Ferguson did not....I find that totally inept....