Bang & Olufsen -
posted on Apr 19, 10 07:07PM
I ask Robert if Bang & Olufsen was still a licensing

partner; especially since their BO2 seems the true design

as-per our claims 'it won't work if the SD/CF card is

remeoved' as I've always contended.

He said that we continue to receive quartly royalty

checks from them.
````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert:

Is our current undisclosed eVU OEM helping us with the

various new technology designs on the our next-generation

eVU?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com>
To: "alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>
Subject: <no subject>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:16:24 -0700

Hi, Tim,

No... We are implementing the hardware, software and

firmware upgrades and adding the technology enhancements

in-house.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert

Would a Laptop computer possibly fall under our

handheld/portable patent claims sometimes in the future?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Tue, Apr 20, 2010 05:10

Possibly.

Thank you, Tim.

Best regards,
Robert
```````````````````````````````````````````````

doni's Q sent via me
Dear Robert:

Why should e.Digital not be a micro-

controller/APIcode/cache supplier to Samsung, as, ie...

Zoran is/was? Is it not worth the effort?

Tim,

Our engineering team specializes in producing MicroOS™-

based portable entertainment systems. We are working to

augment the scope of our markets and products through

further monetizing our Flash-R™ patent portfolio.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert:

*Will the the new pending encription patent utilize our

current MicroOS patent/s as a foundation?

*Is our MicroOS unique attributes the primary reason the

eVU battery is able to achieve such superior power

retention?

Or is it a compilation of both battery ability and MOS.

It says, ''This battery has smarter electronics and a

fuel gauge to test the charge''

http://www.zbattery.com/Laptop-Battery-10-8V-Li-Ion-

SH202-DR202-Replacement
http://www.edigital.com/evu8.htm

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Address Book HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Mon, Apr 26, 2010 07:19 PM

Hi, Tim,

There are elements of MicroOS™ in the pending patent

application. We achieve extended battery life in our

portable products because of the optimization and

customization of hardware and firmware with MicroOS.

Best regards,

Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 |

rputnam@edigital.com

````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert:

I want to thank you for answering my questions here-

lately... again, Thank You.

*Is it possible that by utilizing elements of our MicroOS

in the new Encription Patent; that then if applied within

a network of portable devices it could further secure and

enhance the DRMs of other companies?

*Since our TDL-dataloader is ethernet and eVU is a closed

turn-key sysyem; can/is our OS working with a higher OS

which can be coupled to a partners wireless network?

*Is an eVU Kiosks a possibility to target the general

population for leisure?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Address Book
HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Wed, Apr 28, 2010 07:52 PMDownload All |

Hi, Tim,

Our encryption technology could work with other DRMs, but

it would not provide enhanced security. We are

researching wireless content loading incorporating our

proprietary loading method. Delivering content-loaded

eVUs through kiosks is one of the areas of interest we

are exploring through partnering efforts.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com
`````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear Robert

Sanjay Mehrotra, co-founder and president flash memory

vendor SanDisk recently said this pertaining to NAND

flash memory:

"From wireless handhelds to cameras, tablets and servers,

NAND flash technology will be embedded in billions of

devices over the next 10 years, says Sanjay Mehrotra, co

-founder and president flash memory vendor SanDisk. And,

as the number of devices using NAND technology increase,

the functionality and security of applications embedded

in flash chip controllers will significantly improve, he

added."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176086/Flash_memo

ry_set_to_benefit_from_mobile_Internet_explosion?

source=rss_news

Is it possibly that MicroOS could have elements critical

to the itiology of these flash chip-controler aspects of

flash memory?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

Hi, Tim,

Yes, MicroOS™ could.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 |

rputnam@edigital.com
``````````````````````````````````````````````
Dear Robert:

We see MicroOS is termed a software and hardware

solution. Could the two be combined in the future to

augment our own unique flash controler based

microprocessor vs putting it on someone-elses chip; a

solution which achieves superior functions over the

current competition? Possibly with a partner?

Respectfully,

Tim Scott, Paducah, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Tue, May 04, 2010 06:19 PMDownload All

Hi, Tim,

MicroOS™ is a proprietary low level operating system that

we developed and implemented in hardware designs based on

our digital video/audio platform (DVAP). Even though

MicroOS was originally developed for flash memory, it has

proven to be very flexible and adaptable in enhancing

devices that contain hard drives and require significant

content file management. MicroOS can also support and

manage multiple codecs and digital rights management

systems on a single device. This flexibility could be

built into a chip if hardware designers and manufacturers

wanted to run their products on MicroOS.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

`````````````````````````````````````````
2

Dear Robert:

*Are the airlines that are currently using our eVUs

able to input their own ancillary adds themselves, or is

their material sent into edigital to be incorporate then

sent-out with content updates?

*Are any of our customers using the credit-card swipe

in any capasity?

*Do the airline passengers pay for eVU usage with

cash, before boarding , or can they use the eVU card-

swipe for this also?

*Do our eVUs now have 'Powered by e.Digital' or

something similar displayed somewhere on them?

Respectfully,,

Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky

Dear Robert:

*When airlines test different portable-IFEs; is it

conceivable they would test several different IFE brands

during same time-span but perhaps on differing

flights/routes?

Respectfully,,

Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky

Dear Robert:

I have a question about our 737 patent that I hope can

clarify; it pertains to identifying and marking a bad

segment to initiate the beginning point for a new

message.

*Does the word segments of patent 737, claim 6, line

(b)...represent an erase block, or a read/write block?

Respectfully,,

Tim Scott, Paduach, Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Address Book | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 05:35 PMDownload All

Hi, Tim,

We load all the content and ads for our airline

customers. Our direct airline customers do not rent the

eVUs; they supply them to their business and first class

passengers. Many of Mezzo’s customers rent them to their

passengers, however we are not aware of any eVU airline

customer currently using the credit card feature. Most

airlines don’t share their trial test procedures.

A stylized Powered by e.Digital is on the back of eVU.

The word, “segments” in the patent, claim and line in

question is not limited to an erase block.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

Dear Robert -

Please allow me to restructure this question... Trying

to understand how we may differ and have advantages from

other processes.

*Specifically, can claim 6 line (b) of patent 737 when

marking bad segments under a read/write block logical

format size....salvage the balance of the erase block

(array) , or would the whole array be marked dead?

Respectfully,

Tim

Hi, Tim,

It's my understanding that the marking of defective

memory segments is not
limited to the whole array.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

posted on Jul 01, 10 07:16PM Use the IP Check tool [?]
Dear Robert

* Were all of our five flash patents utilized in the

FlashBack Voice Recorder?

If not which was left out -

Respectully,

Tim Scott, Paducah Ky

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block SenderFull

HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 01, 2010 06:11 PMDownload All |

Yes

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

Dear Robert:

This statement from an IP blog has me confused. Will

both sides have to agree on an independent 'expert' to

exemplify the validity of the patents to present to and

help the judge make a determination after all evidence is

presented; or is it, to each-his-own; meaning we have our

expert/s and they have theirs and both try to make best

arguments then the judge rules on those.?

''My answer is , An intellectual property expert during

Markman hearing as a consulting expert can evaluate the

strength of the patents in question and assist the

attorney in determining the best strategy for any license

negotiations. This expert or experts will use various

patent databases and patent files that detail the history

of the patent prosecution to make a determination as to

the validity of the patents, the likelihood of actual

infringement, and suggest the strategy.''

Respectfully,

Tim

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block

SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 08, 2010 01:11 PMDownload All |

Each side has their own expert.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

Dear Robert:

Will Ron Maltiel be one of our experts to help in

discovery, or will he only be utilized if we go to trial?

Sincerely,

Tim

From: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> View

ContactAdd to Contacts | Invite Sender | Block

SenderFull HeaderReply To:
To:"alertid@juno.com" <alertid@juno.com>Cc:
Bcc:
Sent: Thu, Jul 08, 2010 03:14 PMDownload All | Tim,

This is confidential information. Thank you for your

understanding and continued support.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

Dear Robert - sent 8-9-10

e.Digital told its shareholders that we would get more

information 'later this year' on the new upgraded eVU

system you were planning last Fall/Spring-10.

Now that you have changed directives and only plan a

newer/sleeker eVU design with hardware-mods; will we

still get to see-it in action or get more information in

2010?

Respectfully,

Tim

Hi, Tim,

Per our August 4th press release, should IFE business

conditions improve or we partner outside of portable IFE,

we can rapidly complete and release the next generation

upgrade.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

From: tim scott <alertid@att.net>Add to Contacts
To: Robert Putnam <rputnam@edigital.com> 8-11-10

I remember a few years back our proxy materil stated how

many applicable airlines there are in the world.

Do you remember the number?

respectfully,

tim

Hi Tim

Even though there are hundreds of airlines, including,

cargo, transport, charter and other specialized air

carriers, there are approximately 150 airlines that we

consider prime potential eVU™ customers.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127 | p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f:

858.304.3023 | rputnam@edigital.com

Dear Robert

Currently our MicroOS is specialized/based on

'Portable Entertainment Systems.'

As e.Digital stated, “In connection with our plans to

expand our IP business beyond the Flash-R patent

portfolio, we are collaborating with Dr. Pat Nunally on

developing new technologies.''

Could these new technologies possibly go into areas

other than entertainment?


Respectfully,

Tim Scott

Tue, August 31, 2010 6:08:14 PM
From: Robert Putnam<rputnam@edigital.com>
View Contact
To: <alertid@att.net>

Hi, Tim,

We look forward to releasing more information about our

collaboration with Dr. Nunally on developing new

technologies in future Company communications. I can

disclose that they are unrelated to IFE.

Best regards,
Robert Putnam,Sr. Vice Presidente.Digital Corporation

| 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San Diego, California 92127 |

p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 |

rputnam@edigital.com

9-13-10
Dear Robert:

Our June 27, 2006 PR says we contracted with Pat

Nunally to identify products/companies infrienging on our

patents.

How is he being paid/compensated for his work? Where

does/did it come under in our 10-K/s.

Is he an employee of e.Digital? - since we've now

learned he's developing new technologies for us.

Respectfully,

Tim

Hi, Tim,

Dr. Pat Nunally is a paid consultant of the Company and

his fees are included with other operating expenses in

our financial statements.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 |

rputnam@edigital.com

Morning Robert, Note: question sent @ 10:19 AM CA time,

reply received @ 10:49 AM.

With reference to the recent Srilankan eVU order, as well

as past such PR's of other customers, is the quantity

sold, the unit price and profit margin per unit,

considered company confidential, and if so, can you

provide a brief reasoning why e.Digital does not make

such information public?

Thank you,

EDIG JOE

Hi, Joe,

Two main reasons: 1) Our competitors don't provide any of

this information and, 2) Most of our airline customers do

not want the size of their orders (units ordered and

dollar amounts) disclosed in our press releases.

Best regards,
Robert

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

sky56 - posted on Oct 23, 09 02:15PM
I asked this question in Aug.

Response from RP-

Cross licensing helps facilitate settlements and builds

our base of intellectual property (IP). Due to the

confidentiality terms in the licensing and settlement

agreements, the only information we can provide has

been/will be issued through press releases and our SEC

filings. How we use the cross licensed IP will be made

public when we utilize it in our business and/or product

offerings.

DABOSS - Tier 1 vs Tier 2
posted on Mar 11, 10 07:57PM
A bit of clarity as we work through the process....

Per our earlier e-mail exchange, as we explained in the

2008 shareholders meeting, tier one filings are being

directed at companies we believe infringe mainly on key

claims within the '774 patent whereas tier two cases are

expected to be filed against companies we believe

infringe on specific claims within the Flash-R™ patent

portfolio pertaining to fundamental techniques in

utilizing flash memory (embedded or removable). The type

of companies that we expect to file against in tier two

suits will be different from our tier one suits.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

northtocool - e-mail from RP
posted on Jan 05, 10 03:18PM

Thank you for your e-mail, Mark. The current round of

filings are focused on our U.S. Patent 5.491,774 relating

to the use of flash memory in portable recording devices.

U.S. Patents 5,787,445 and 5,839,108 relate to MicroOS™

and flash memory and are expected to figure more

prominently in future filings.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

DABOSS - posted on Jul 01, 10 12:41PM
I asked if a Markman ruling carries over into the later

rounds of lawsuits or does it have to be revisited with

each group of subsequent filings.

Here is the response:

It is our understanding that the Markman process results

in definitive rulings by a Federal Court regarding the

meaning of specific claim terms within a patent (or

patents). Once a Federal Court has issued its Markman

rulings, it becomes difficult to vary from those meanings

and in most cases there are no further claim

constructions undertaken. Generally, the original rulings

carry over to subsequent defendants.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

DRVEN - Sent 4-28-09
Dear Robert,
Let me congratulate you and the others in the management

team for the recent court victory. We all have been

hoping for a favorable outcome. I have a number of

questions and I would be very obliged if you would answer

them, or at least as many as you feel you are able to

without compromising the plans of the company.

1. The recently acquired EFB by IMS reminds us all that

competition never sleeps. This acquisition provided them

with a new product and a new channel of placing their

products in the airline industry. Do we in Edig have an

answer to such moves?

2. Does this mean that we lose our ranking in the

industry?

3. How does the quality of our product measure up against

the competition?

4. How does Edig’s sale efforts compare to that of our

competition?

5. How many people are involved in sales? Whatever the

number might be, do we have an adequate number to do the

required job? If not, why not since now the company seems

to have adequate resources to hire more people? Who has

replaced Mr. Falk?

6. Why does IMS appear to be so successful in placing its

products even under the most trying circumstances of the

present economic environment?

7. How does Edig plan on using the increased revenues?

8. Is our engineering personnel adequate to stay

competitive in the business of technological innovation?

How many engineers do we have at this time?

9. Does the management have any plans to revise the

business plan and become a technology firm living thereby

on fees derived from licensing its technology? Ranbo has

done this much but their engineering department has far

more engineers than we do.

10. Could you please guide us shareholders in regard to

future projected sales?

11. Is there any conflict of interest between DM and Edig

in view of the fact that their goals might be diverging?

More explicitly: In the short-run both companies would

like easy and fast settlements; Edig needs working

capital and MD would like inexpensive settlements. But in

the long run Edig would like big settlements that might

entail large outlays of time and money and DM might not

want to engage in protracted and expensive court battles.

In this case what is management’s strategy?

I will be grateful if you try to answer any (preferably

all) questions.

Thank you very much in advance

Sincerely Yours

RP's reply

posted on Apr 29, 09 08:08AM
Thank you for your e-mail, Dr. Per our press releases and

SEC filings, our business strategy is to market our eVU™

products and services to U.S. and international airlines,

other companies in the travel and leisure industry, and

to healthcare organizations. We employ both direct sales

to customers and sales through value added resellers that

provide marketing, logistic and/or content services to

customers. We are also commercializing our Flash-R™

patent portfolio through licensing and we are pursuing

enforcement by litigating against those who may be

infringing our patents. Our international legal firm,

Duane Morris LLP, is handling our patent enforcement

matters on a contingent fee basis. We’re pleased to have

favorably licensed and settled six of the eight cases

that initiated our intellectual property monetization

efforts, with more filings being prepared. Since comments

we make (either in company communications, SEC filings,

or individual e-mail responses that get posted on

Internet chat boards) are scrutinized by opposing

attorneys and the companies they represent, we believe it

is in the best interest of e.Digital and its shareholders

that we keep our IP monetization strategies confidential

so that our words are not used against us during

settlement discussions and/or litigation. The same holds

true regarding providing greater detail to our

competition on growing our eVU business.

We believe our eVU system is the best dedicated portable

IFE device in the industry. As to our “ranking” in the

portable IFE industry, none of our competitors provide

financial results other than unverified claims of

“doubling” their business, etc. Suffice it to say, we

believe we’re one of the leaders. As we stated in our

press release of January 21, 2009, with the recent and

expected influx of new licensing revenues, we are in a

better position to pursue business opportunities and

partnerships in the medical industry, and in other

segments of the travel and leisure industry. Fred Falk’s

experience in building and managing partnering and

licensing relationships align with the Company’s strategy

to grow its business through mutually beneficial

partnering arrangements rather than through building and

paying for an internal sales team. We also anticipate a

successful resolution of the digEcor lawsuit will greatly

benefit our efforts to grow the eVU business.

We have a creative, dedicated engineering team that has

successfully designed several products based on our

proprietary digital video/audio platform, and we believe

they will continue to keep us ahead of the technological

innovation curve.

Thank you for your continued support.

Best regards,

Robert Putnam,
Sr. Vice President

e.Digital Corporation | 16770 West Bernardo Dr. | San

Diego, California 92127
| p: 858.304.3016 ext. 205 | f: 858.304.3023 |

rputnam@edigital.com

Daboss -9-09-2010, CTFR Final Rejection Received per

Encription Patent #20070011602.

Mgnt Response to us: ''With the assistance of Dr. Pat

Nunally and our patent counsel, we are examining the new

prior art cited by the USPTO in their latest office

action on our digital storage media encryption patent

application. After a thorough examination, our patent

counsel will prepare and file our response to the office

action.''