Your post raises questions about some major issues confronting EDIG...

For example your statement, "Some companies will bring products to market without applying for a patent. The can wind up with a large market share with that approach.", is the essence of the problem EDIG has been having for the 16 years that I have been aware of their existence. THEY HAVE FAILED TO ACQUIRE ANY SHARE OF THE MARKET in the arena where their patents are applicable...

There are several reasons for the FAILURE, with the most important one being the fact EDIG choose as a PLAN the synergistic method of expanding their, company who was to play a significant role in developing a a NEW and expanding market for digital data tranmission...

January 2000 CES CONVENTION was a bustling PLACE where all the BIG WIGS of the TECH INDUSTRY were present. EDIG shared a spot in SAMSUNG area, and its TECH. was in the chips marketed by Texas Instruments. Wherever you went there was talk of thing to come in the filed of digital data trasnmission, and EDIG was well known by everyone who touted a product, like a music player, or a camera,that would store data digitally...

EDIG was one of the 5 major corporations, the likes of,(Intel, IBM, Microsoft,, ETC.) who had formed a group to usher the digital era in, and Gates was holding the PUCK while appearing on CNN talking about thing to come. THOSE WERE THE DAYS!...

Your statement that follows is correct, and EDIG misfortunes thus far confirm it. You say:

"So the people who can do you harm (competitors) are fully aware of what you are trying to do and they can decide if the idea is worth stealing by doing it some other way, or just by infringing on the patent making a fortune and the settling for a licence at a cost that makes it worthwhile to them."

The engineers manning the AUDIOVOUX booth were confirmed your statement that "if an idea is worth stealing by doing it some other way", they should do that. They were fully aware of EDIG and had high regards for its Tech and engineers, but they were told by the CEO figure out some other way of doing what EDIG did, or he would can all the engineers that he employed.

Furthermore, that law suits thus far, and the APPLE I-Pod example justify the second part of you statement that many followed the path of Infringing first, and provided for a payment after they were named defendants, or as in Apple case built up a 40 Billion stash of cash to pay any law suits against them...

History shows you are not wrong in your observations, and at this stage we only hope for DM to continue with its enforcement of EDIG rights...

GLTA...

Gil...