there are five considerations, so far, that a release is identified with...

1. (6)... with prejudice "a license and release on the Company's Flash-R™ patent portfolio"....

2. (1)... without prejudice "has agreed to make an undisclosed lump sum payment for past infringing sales and to pay a royalty for any on-going sales of products that practice e.Digital's U.S. Patent 5,491,774" . .....(no license agreement)

3. (1)... with prejudice "a license and release on e.Digital's foreign and domestic patent rights, including the Company's Flash-R™ patent portfolio".....(non-definitive)

4. (2)... with prejudice "obtained a license and release on all e.Digital foreign and domestic patent rights, including the Company's Flash-R™ patent portfolio"...definitive...ALL

5. (1)... without prejudice "obtained a license and release on all e.Digital foreign and domestic patent rights and has agreed to pay an on-going royalty for the licensed rights." ..definitive...ALL...except Flash R

for 11 settlements to date...

I'm being told that I'm wrong....however, the issues are not mine.....they are verbatim press releases and Pacer docs. Each one of those five has a distinctly different resolution relating to different degrees of IP licensed. With that, IMO, the door is open to visit IP issues that are not fully identified within certain resolutions.

jefother, Minister....might you guys have a consideration as to how PRs are written and what they include?

doni