They ended up as governance by of CA law....and reading of how the judge came to the determination, I'm pretty much sure that issue is over, he was very meticulous in making the decision.

My comments are of the followup proceedings at trial for e.Digitals basic license, prior to the claims of the newer DRM issues.

It seems that DigEcor, even though the court has ruled that the tech of the eVu is different, DigEcor is making the claim that the prior basic license is moot and that the newer claims of the DRM agreement, in essence, supersede the prior license....lol

It says to me, DRM aside(as you need the basics to drive it), that DigEcor needs a license that is outdated and they are trying to get it on a technicality of the DRM. It's almost the same as the supersede of the newer NDA claims that e.Digital argued.....there just not calling it supersede and there's no verbiage for the claim.

doni