Bill: From your post...

"The case has widespread implications because it raises questions about how tough patent holders can be in restricting licenses."

"As I understand it e.Digital's claims are about other companies using their technology without any licensing whatsoever. <R> I am not sure that e.Digital will claim that company B is an infringer because it used the technology of company A which infringes directly upon e.Digital's patents."<R>...

FIRST:...

The paragraph about "WIDE SPREAD IMPLICATIONS" clearly applies to, (at least at the Circuit Court level), to all situations where EDIG has licensed its Tech to for example TI. ITEL, HP, PORTAL PLAYER, etc. who use it to produce chips sold to others, like NOKIA, SAMSUNG, etc. to make products that utelize FLASH in their digital data processing...

If we call these "Derevitive Infringers" they, IMO, will make up the most significant part of the claims DM will be making for EDIG...

Everyone here has been "drooling" over the probability of taking a bite of the APPLE!?... That, from what we know, would be some such "Derivitive claim".  It is these type of claims that are, and will be affected by the decision if upheld by the Supreme Court...

SECOND: 

Those longs who have been here for almost 10 years know that EDIG was one of the Founfing members of the GROUP of FIVE or so companies who were organized to bring about the Digital Data Transmission revolution...

The entire Business Plan of this company was and has been, (with the exception of the foray in selling O-1000, digE, and eVU), to "PARTNER" with TI, INTEL, HP, Itiam(?), Portal Player, etc. to facilitate production of various chips produced by said "Partners"  that are sold to their "Customers", who in turn use those chips to produce products for sale in the FLASH Market...

It is this door that will be closed if the Ciruit Court opinion is upheld by the Supreme Court...

PLEASE, keep us posted about the progress of the case through the Supreme Court docket...

GLTA...

Gil...