"Jimmee11, always said we could be "engineered around", given time, and development...Obviously, Delphi engineered around by 2006-007, and openly admitted it."

engineered around?.....lol

What they do is simply read the patents and implement the ideas....that is what e.Digital is suing for.

First on the block is the hardware/memory interface arrangement and a minimal detail of memory format that also involves a simple bad memory cell isolation.

If e.Digital is successful at this stage....it's all they need in front of all the companies that have adopted the ideas in driving the bit stream....

My fingers are crossed that the courts will identify that the hardware arrangements are indeed part and parcel to what happens in delivering the arrangements orchestrated within the memory and cannot be compared to status quo methods...even though common parts are typical to the industry.
There is a simple way to identify a possible infringer....and that is by removing the memory while a file is executing stopping the play. The judge cannot see the memory format, however, it should be simple enough in explaining what is happening in the process.

The defendants argue in their latest comments....

"Moreover, Defendants all maintain that the asserted claims are invalid and/or unenforceable, and that one or more prior art references anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit."

To me, they seem to portray....no big deal, its just simple obvious set of common methods that we all implement.

Yet for compensation matters....

"b. Defendants: Defendants all state that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C.
§ 285 and that they are all entitled to recovery of their costs, attorneys’ fees and all other expenses for this suit."

Where I understand that to mean... not so simple a deal when it comes to supplying/ relaying our obvious common methods to e.Digital.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see them arguing two different ideas of thought.

I hope the judge sees it that way.

doni