"Some posters believe we make $ on cross-licensing. My understanding is we make money selling gadgets or licensing our patented technology. Cross-licensing doesn't provide a revenue stream unless we sell product that uses LG/Casio technology. The only benefit of a cross-license right now is we won't have to pay a license fee for using LG or Casio patented technology which, if we have been using any up to this point, I can't see where we've paid a fee to use it."

Let's say the "cross-licenses" (the ability to use, oh, let's assume 100+ other company's current relevant patents in all of EDIG's future tech) is one of the significant 'value enhancers' of the company.

THAT IS, THE ABILITY FOR WHOEVER DECIDES TO BUY EDIG OUT IN THE FUTURE WILL DO SO FOR ITS CROSS-LICENSED (ACQUIRED) IP PORTFOLIO.

Can you think of anyone that may, in the future, want to buy a single company that has the ability to use patents from 100 (or more) of the largest technology companies in the world ..all for one price and in one bid?

If that isn't worth 100+ TIMES today's price of admission, I don't know what is.

How many more cross-licenses will be attached to each EDIG share?

(I know some of you might say that the company is not for sale, and cite a 'poison pill' to prevent a takeover. But at some point, I'm sure all shareholders will want to cash out.)

I will completely agree that while cross-licensing does not provide a CURRENT revenue stream in the context you stated... but as the cross-licensed portfolio increases, so does the attractiveness of the company behind the shares.