From you post:

``Now here is what can be inferred from what you say RP told you: (restated: they are using some high powered firms, that they are using multiple firms because of conflict issues).

1. They are going to sue or give notice and demand letters to multiple entities.

2. More than one high powered firm thinks e.Digital`s case is viable and is willing to take it on a contingency fee basis.

Taking those two assumptions together: 1) it seems to be a good thing if they are going to be suing companies big enough to be represented by this type of firm (take a look at the client lists of some of those firms) and 2) multiple firms` willingness to take their case lends a presumption of validity to their cause and 3) one begins to get a sense that this is a broad-based effort.``

I should note that my previous post was paraphrasing the conversation I had with Putnam. Also I might add that these law firms were interested in persuing eDigitals property rights on a contingency basis. Putnam spoke about the alternative way of persuing this was on a fee basis where we would dilute shareholder equity in order to raise $3 - $4 million and probably still not be able to afford the legal representation. To do this on a contingency basis was the only way to do it and there appears to be interest to do so.

Larry