The question you raise is the singular reason Apple was not the Number one on the list to be sued by DM. And that question is:...

Can A.,(EDIG), who has placed its technolgy in the course of commerce voluntarily by having B. (Portal Player), incorporate it in products it sells to C., (Apple), SUE APPLE for infringement?...

There is an Appellate Court Decision that held the ANSWER is NO...

I am positive this will be one of the defenses APPLE will raise. Furthermore, this would be the type of a case a LAW FIRM LIKE DM would want to take up to the Supreme Court to change the law that clearly would be unjust if applied to the facts of EDIG case...

Wehn EDIG agreed to have Portal Player incorporate its Tech in the Platforms that became the basis of the I-Pod, Jobs was ousted from Apple ans the Stock brokers had an X Cocola CEO running apple into the ground. They got Jobs back and he started with I-Pod based on Portal Player Platforms, and the only Patent he had was one dealing with the shape of the I-Pod and the interface technology...

When he came up with the second generation, he had several Patents which clearly cited EDIG Tech as PRIOR ART.

I recall reading an Article by C-NET where the author had done a "GUT CHECK" of the I-Pod and accordeing to what I recall EDIG foot print was all ove it.

DM will have to do a lot of Discovery to make a basis for unjust enrichment by Apple by for example reverse engineering the Portal Player platform technology to come up with their own version of FLASH?! The argument would be something like EDIG did not intend to have its tech reverse engineered when they made the deal with Portal Player... From here it gets more complicated...

GLTA...

Gil...