I wonder if Samsung's "Obligations" included divulging where their products were manufactured and who sold them those products with EDIG's PATENTED technology?

Just speculatin' here.... (and I've been way more wrong than right lately) but whad'ya suppose Samsung's "Obligations" were met by dropping a dime on their suppliers... or in this case, 12,500,000 dimes?

It would make sense that if Samsung was "low hanging" that Samsung was at the 'end' of the product line (i.e. only a marketer and simultaneously a customer) of the company that manufactured actual products for resell under another name (Samsung's brand name) with the infringing technology. Claim "Plausible Deniability"... say they were 'assured' by their supplier of processors that they had a right to use the patents when they did not.

Maybe the definition of 'low hanging' is those who resold and / or marketed products provided by a further "up the tree" or higher supplier.

If the manufacturer was listed first, then 'patent exhaustion' could be brought up thus ending any hopes of collecting (in this case an extra 1.25MM) from 'downstream' or 'low hanging' resellers / marketers. Who knows how many other companies resold products actually manufactured by this unnamed as yet provider (but I think we know who I am alluding to).

Perhaps 19? or 20?

This would be like EDIG first going after digEcor for infringment, then their current supplier.

First to collect for selling an infringing product, then to the manufacturer for making the product.

Other way around... someone could argue that because the 'manufacturer' has a license, all products sold by all their customers are covered under the license (That is "Patent Exhaustion" for those new here). Not sure how far they would get with that argument, however, since the question is open on whether or not this theory applies to intellectual property that had been used originally without permision (stolen).

That is, of course, assuming digEcor's product is infringing on EDIG's Tech. But that assumption not been proven or even alleged.... so I can't say that their product in anyway infringes on EDIG's Patents or technology.

Anyway, yes, I'll admit I was somewhat disappointed with yesterday's number.... and I will admit I am not sure based on the arguments both ways if it includes or doesn't... however, looking at the overall picture, I'm holding onto my shares for the time being.

Finally, I won't be at the meeting... perhaps someone can ask if EDIG will pay all its remaining obligations in CASH and let the recipient decide to buy on the open market if they would rather have the shares instead?