posted on
Feb 02, 2011 02:58PM
Message: Re: doni?
2
Feb 01, 2011 09:28AM
7
Feb 01, 2011 09:44AM
6
Feb 01, 2011 10:59AM
6
Feb 01, 2011 11:10AM
5
Feb 01, 2011 11:14AM
10
Feb 01, 2011 11:59AM
3
Feb 01, 2011 12:15PM
22
Feb 01, 2011 07:24PM
5
Feb 01, 2011 09:18PM
3
Feb 01, 2011 09:56PM
9
Feb 01, 2011 10:11PM
2
Feb 01, 2011 11:35PM
10
Feb 02, 2011 09:55AM
3
Feb 02, 2011 10:58AM
1
Feb 02, 2011 11:08AM
1
Feb 02, 2011 11:08AM
4
Feb 02, 2011 11:19AM
14
Feb 02, 2011 11:31AM
2
Feb 02, 2011 12:12PM
4
Feb 02, 2011 12:20PM
14
Feb 02, 2011 01:02PM
"when all these years your main contention for the patents was the fact that RAM is not needed"
really? ......lol
They have a very controlled detail when it comes to RAM resource.
They're out to stop cheaters form utilizing those details...no matter what size RAM implementation cheaters might be using or what foot print of the RAM they utilize.
For now, just figure that the defendants are using their RAM issues as a blinder to hide behind.....and they want to make a point that e.Digital does not utilize RAM resources.
One of my contentions from the very beginning was to point to the RAM issue to find a potential cheater. Thing is, cheaters are not going to blatantly implement RAM details physically in the same manner as e.Digital, that would signal infringement....no, they're going to hide behind unscaled issues in order to stay invisible, while... utilizing I/O and data structure considerations in front of it and the flash.
doni
9 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
5
Feb 02, 2011 04:33PM
2
Feb 03, 2011 09:28AM
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply