doni, EDIG has informed the Court the 2002 NDA was signed only because Boyer told them he had a novel idea that was patent pending. This was a flat-out lie. Boyer did not have a novel idea for a prototype digital audio/video player because EDIG had two prototypes drawn up before the NDA was signed. He also had not applied for a patent on his idea. Therefore the entire NDA should be thrown out...kind of like fruit from a poisonous tree. If a knowingly fraudulent NDA (the poisonous tree) was pitched to EDIG as completely factual, then all of its individual contents (the fruit) should be void and inadmissable as evidence in this case. EDIG should not be bound by the NDA because Boyer misrepresented his idea and that he had applied for a patent. If the NDA is thrown out, then the non-compete is moot. All in my opinion of course. If the Court disagrees with EDIG, then it will have to decide if the scope of the NDA was too binding in nature, or if it has ambiguous language, etc, and go from there.

Also, someone wrote a post about BOW thinking he bought EDIG technology when he bought APS. digEcor had a press release years ago when the digEplayer was announced and it clearly stated e.Digital technology was used. Of couse it isn't on digEcor's website anymore but EDIG has a copy of the PR and has submitted it to the Court as evidence. The point is BOW knew that the digEplayer was powered by our technology when they bought APS from Boyer.