My comments are of the followup proceedings at trial for e.Digitals basic license that were in place prior to the claims of the newer DRM issues.
It seems that DigEcor, even though the court has ruled on aspects of the DRM and 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 basic license....lol
It says to me, DRM aside(as you need the basics to drive it), that DigEcor needs a license that is outdated, where they are trying to get it on a technicality of the DRM.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.....they're just not calling it supersede and there's no verbiage for the claim.
doni
