Your comments are very interesting, but a little confusing.

How can the issue (i.e., technology?) be ``so far removed from e.Ditigal``? The way I interpret an agnostic design is that e.Digital`s technology can be applied to most systems/architectures/platforms, so it is e.Digital`s technology that is agnostic (perhaps fused with a partner`s technology), so hardly far removed from e.Digital.

When you say ``development was totally by the large company``, do you mean that this company understood how best to utilize e.Digital`s tech and packaged it into a system that may interest many other customers? What are your thoughts of what type of ``large company`` might do this, and to whom are they trying to sell the design?

Does this development relate to the licensing agreement we heard about in 2004, or do you think this is a different customer?

If the design is agnostic, does that mean it works with all DRM`s, complementing both Microsoft and Apple schemes, and any others? Or does it imply something different?

Thanks for any clarification here.

-dy2147