ROFLOL. I always find your backpedals from the issues humorous.

Your original post stated there was an e.Digital PR or shareholder letter stating DM thought our '774 was the most promising. richardo came to your defense (probably because he sensed your weakness) and provided a PR which was interesting, but did not substantiate your claim that DM thought our '774 patent is the most promising.

In a later post you wrote, CLEARLY "Independant [sic] evaluations" was evaluation from DM. Now you write, Apparently DM "evaluated"….

What's next...maybe DM thought? Perhaps DM thought? You stress providing factual information yet cannot provide sources to back up the so-called facts in your posts. Instead of implying such information is factual, perhaps you should preface your comments with "in my opinion" as many other members do.

And I'm still waiting on the PR that proves e.Digital believed a patent other than the '774 patent is the nuts. To cite a PR that mentions licensing our MicroOS in the "About e.Digital” section of the PR has got to be the lamest example of proof in the history of lame examples. And how do we know the '774 patent is the most promising? Maybe it is the '445 or '108 patents.

-----------

Numbers people! Who has them?!