Ted, with all due respect, if you understood the full story, technically, between 774 and 108 ...and not just what you consider of the legal issues...you would have a different opinion.

For the legal standing that the defendants pushed regarding 774 in CO....you would appreciate how the 180-degree opposite happened when 108 was challenged.

The devise of 108 and 774, as composed, are deliberate and e.Digital expected this issue might happen.

Packaging 774 as it was.... took deep consideration, that "one of ordinary skill in the art" would be able to understand and use this patent in its composed manner. The CO court made a ruling that "one of ordinary skill in the art" would have a problem and ruled as it did...because there was no evidence that RAM was an entity of the patent as composed.

Ted, you cannot argue with that conclusion.

There is only one reason I'm still around after that ruling...and that, because. I understood the 108 would reveal the complete opposite.

Ted, you really should come to realize that the legal team that composed 774 and 108 had this all figured out.... before it was prosecuted against any defendants.

Come on Ted, forget about that and come over to the lighter side. I understand there's an age issue, however, the game plan was put together way before you, or I ever got involved with e.Digital.

Let them run their game plan.... as I feel e.Digital, as a whole, does not want to point fingers at anyone.

I had similar feelings initially, as you, however they are all justifiable, even the CE ruling, IMO...if one understands the differences between 774 and 108.

You really need to appreciate where we stand now after all the testing and re-testing of the legal matters.

There are smart people running the patent issues of e.Digital and it started long ago.

doni