noted..................that would be 174 CE companies that need to smarten up.

I don't know how a company could claim infringement on the totality of a final product....where the infringement might involve 15% of the cost to build... not the suggested retail. Except that, e.Digital has put forth and continues to encourage, efforts in the capacity as an OEM. That could be their crutch....something like.."Their robbing us short in our CE efforts by utilizing xyz of our patent portfolio teachings"....with that they may be entitled.

For e.Digital showing effort under IC development input only...the consideration would be. 1. the ability to allow the device to function as any other provider,... get the job done you might say, and 2. the discount to the bill of goods allowed by eliminating component structure.

What's it worth in a bill of goods?
With that, consider their cost set for the DigEplayer to Boyer....IMO..they revealed too much of their hand....in attempt to get the ball rolling. I don't think they could have done it any other way....growing pains of new ideas.

IMO..They were caught by surprise, with Boyer selling out. IMO...he sold out just to unload APS as a whole.

This is where the challenge with Wencor came about.
Under this circumstance...e.Digital was the OEM with a resale to Wencor...they deserved more in that respect, if indeed, what I read of their fees was correct...600.00 per unit?

They should have been getting at minimum 60% of the 2500.00 Wencor gets under a complete device build. A consequence of being early to the game, I guess.

IMO...for this, Wencor did not want to come to terms
shearing with an OEM supplied delivery. Now, as of the so called development contract, they want to pay for just the IC....e.Digital has never supplied to them in this respect...for that. IMO...it does not look good for Wencor/DigEcor.

doni