From your post, the email responce from Robert

Per our earlier e-mail exchange, as we explained in the 2008 shareholders meeting, tier one filings are being directed at companies we believe infringe mainly on key claims within the '774 patent whereas tier two cases are expected to be filed against companies we believe infringe on specific claims within the Flash-R™ patent portfolio pertaining to fundamental techniques in utilizing flash memory (embedded or removable)

I had never entirely bought into the notion that Apple had infringed on our patents. None of their memory is removable. I remember Jim Collier saying that he was talking with Apple on a daily basis. This was pre Ipod days and at the time I considered we were somehow involved with player development. In retrospect, perhaps we were competing with Portal Player. The end result of whatever those daily conversations were left us out of the mix with an ipod , iphone, ipad design that embedded the flash rather than making it removable.

This comment by Robert indicating that our IP could be enforced on the basis of infringing on specific claims within the Flash- R patent porfolio, whether it's embedded or removable, opens up the prospect of litigating against Apple. It's the fundamentals of our patent that structures and retrives data in sequencial order, and bad block and wear leveling thats important, not whether it is embedded or removable. It almost seems like those conversations with Collier may have provide Apple with a loop hole design, intended to avoid infringing our patents. Good to get an acknowledgement that this may not be the case.

Larry