"They are getting bad advice."

Perhaps...however, there is that greed to try and play the full hand.

"If Apple, Intel, and samsung settled."

They each have a different set of circumstance.

RE: Apple was an instigator of the CE issue in staving off 774....GoPro being part of that initiative. The 108 conditions were considered to the CE petitioned by the defendants. The defendants new the exacting technical relationship between 774 and 108 when motioned for CE.

Apple settled other issues not having 108 asserted against it. Apple settled knowing the technical relationship between 774 and 108. Apple settled its asserted issues from a best advantage, that being, e.Digital is under pressure of the CE ruling needing further conclusion to gain any bargaining power. Apple, RE: e.Digital appeal issues..."no need of us waiting for that conclusion, what happens, happens, we'll deal with it later for whatever happens." A question now remains for Apple, will 108 be asserted against Apple post appeal?

RE: Intel

Intel had 108 asserted against it and was not part of the appeal process. Intel settled its asserted issues post appeal ruling and prior to its claims construction matters. Intel was aware of the technical relationship between 108 and 774 and for its claim construction matters approaching, it new, the worst-case scenario for e.Digial was a dis-positive consideration for defendants. Meaning, 774 claims construction matters were ruled one way without RAM …108 would be ruled in the other direction having identifiable RAM considerations. From my prospective…

RE: Samsung.

Samsung settled prior to the CO Markamn ruling. Samsung settled its asserted issues not going to a claims construction hearing. Samsung and e.Digital agreed to dismiss 108 and 445 under stipulated conditions and they remain a question, as to the settlement of their reaming asserted issues.

They simply cannot be lumped together, as the above defendants settle/dismiss under different conditions.

doni