After reading Iseethelight's original post, Dish's interpretation of the highlighted part, and doni's further clarification, I am both more hopeful in our ability to ultimately come out on top in this matter and angry. If indeed the highlighted part is describing how some of our patents work, then it seems Apple is infringing and has simply used the numbers 104 and 106 to make it sound like something different. It wouid seem that is the very reason to have a patent--so things like this cannot happen. The Judge's partial ruling also seems to be less detrimental to the ultimate resolution, but definitely a blow to the stock price in the short run--thanks Judge! She apparently "ruled" on only one part of one of the patents either out of ignorance or possibly out of spite or possibly caused by her being intimidated by the situation in the hopes that the parties will resolve it without her sticking her neck out. These patents seemingly, from a layman's point of view, have a definite interconnectivity which complete's the loop if you will. Well, how then can someone, after almost six months, "rule" on one portion of the overall system while not including the entire concept? And how valid could that ruling really be? I have to believe that DM saw this interconnectivity based on their response and is attempting to guide this process to the place we need to be to prevail. The company and Fred et. al have stumbled in the past, but I have to believe that DM is our savoir.