"The Addendum Paragraph establishes that DRM technology is defined by “three categories as

follows: physical security[,] encoding[, and] digital security[:]”

Physical security . . . is the means by which the physical media containing the content is protected. Logs, procedures, and safes typically address this type of protection.

Encoding [is] [s]ecurity that is implemented during the encoding process, . . . as proprietary file containers and bit stream format.

Digital Security. . . is applied in the form of encryption algorithms.

Finally, while the contracting parties, who are sophisticated business entities, could have chosen either to define DRM technology, and hence, Plaintiff’s exclusivity rights, so as to allow for the severability of various components of the technology, or to grant Plaintiff exclusive rights as to any technology substantially similar to the described DRM technology, they did not do so.

Accordingly, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff’s exclusivity rights are limited to technology which, among the other components listed in Addendum One, includes RBE.

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 5) is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART."

The court limited them to RBE only...

The court ruled in that manner because the "DRM CONTRACT" is outlined for RBE with .avi file only(or above "Digital Security"). With that, it was to e.Digitals desecration to implement a new concept or an off the shelf PC application.

doni