That's kind of an interesting response (all just friendly debate - I don't intend this to be combative).

I say this because you suggest that PTSC should have been "on it" upon award of the patents. Ownership of the patents was being contested at the time - but I wouldn't expect you to KNOW that bit of PTSC past. PTSC prevailed against Fish in that litigation, but the co-inventory Moore remained to contend with.  So controversy existed at some level while PTSC continued in its efforts to sell its product, the SHBoom and then the Ignite/Inflame chipsets. Then they pushed the patents again and finally settled with Moore/TPL and the game was on. So it could be argued that PTSC may have held back recognizing that the concept of pursuing infringers would evoke more controversy (or Moore controversy LOL).

Now think about what you said with this added perspective. Now think about what EDIG management has done. Patent controversy didn't really exist (regarding validity perhaps, but no ownership rights issues). So the only thing holding EDIG back from pursuing this over the past 4-6 years was lack of motivation OR a preconceived plan. Per your comments, EDIG should have pursued infringers at any of the following "event points":

- When Flash memory first began to be recognized.

- When the first PDA or camera came out with removeable flash.

- When the first MP3 players came out (particularly when the DSP/FGPA in the device was produced by any company who had been exposed in some way to MicroOS, e.g., TI, or even Apple who had been exposed via QDesign or PortalPlayer).

But there was a reason why EDIG didn't go for it sooner - it was a preconceived plan and a matter of company policy.  I KNOW this per my conversation with RP in Jan '00. So, better circumstance, but still held back.

So I wouldn't be too critical of PTSC in its lag to action. The action was wrought with peril. But now they've faced that peril and have prevailed to a large degree.

Hopefully, with a far less perilous journey, EDIG will be equally successful.  And I'd bet EDIG will be very pleased to take a bunch of one-time payment licensees in the early stages, just like PTSC (though it wasn't necessarily PTSC's call). And keep in mind that a one-time payment is virtually the only way to be compensated for past infringement. Ongoing royalties pertain to future infringement.

All just another perspective and a little history lesson on PTSC, coupled with the basic "observation".

One point I do want to get across is that the PTSC vs. EDIG "competition" is a bit of a coin-flip.

PTSC is well on its way, with likely hundreds of millions yet to be realized, but no tangible back up plan for an ongoing revenue stream (though I find this a weak argument, because if they indeed garner just $100M and simply invest it in a AAA-rated interest-bearing investment at just 5% they'd have a revenue stream as great as if EDIG were selling $25M in eVUs per year - my SWAG - and PTSC would still have the $100M).

EDIG has its "back up plan" for an ongoing revenue stream already in play. They just need the cash to make it happen more/sooner. And when will they get it? Minimum six months IMO (IF they get a law firm(s) on board and they convince someone to settle early - probably for a small amount to validate), and quite possibly years away. Meanwhile we have BOW to contend with, and THAT story isn't over (I suspect EDIG will be forced to reimburse for "production oversight" plus probable penalties for very late delivery, and the rest of the issues will evaporate - though this is not a "given"). Will EDIG survive to reap the rewards? This $1M order won't cover one-month's burn, assuming 20% margin. But I'm confident EDIG will stay in the game.

And both companies have warrant issues, and a relatively high float (though if either go "big time" the large float will be a necessity and may perhaps need to actually increase).

Both companies have the spectre of "trial gone haywire". EDIG could somehow loose big to BOW - game over except for patent pursuit. PTSC could loose to the J3/ARM - game over as MMP not validated except PTSC has other patents likely being infringed.

But anyone here reading this is obviously a risk-taker....  Odds keep moving in our favor on both the EDIG and PTSC fronts.

And most of this I think I actually KNOW - or have at least convinced myself. Aah crap - I KNOW nuttin' and it's all JMHO! LOL

SGE