"A Federal judge, as you know, has already ruled the eVu to be different product and legally OK for EDig to go ahead with its business using that product."

It’s true the Court has ruled the eVU a different product than the digEplayer. digEcor_Doc65, page 13, paragraph C is the reference paragraph. Page 14, middle of the page has this sentence,

“Defendants assert they are entitled to produce and sell any technology that does not use RBE because such technology is not DRM technology, and thus, would not run afoul of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the DRM Agreement.”

This paragraph is very important in my opinion because the Court recognizes EDIG’s intent to produce and sell products that do not violate the DRM Agreement. At the end of paragraph C on page 18,

“Accordingly, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff’s exclusivity rights are limited to technology which, among the other components listed in Addendum One, includes RBE. The Court further finds that the DRM Agreement defines DRM technology as the sum of its component parts, as set forth in Addendum One, and not severally as to each component.”

LL, with this ruling, isn’t the Court telling both parties that EDIG has the right to produce and sell any technology that doesn’t include the sum of all the component parts as described in Addendum One of the DRM Agreement? Take away any single component, such as the RBE, and digEcor’s exclusivity rights disappear. Seems definitive to me. The Court has to know EDIG’s single product is the eVU and their only current source of income. Would the Court give EDIG this kind of encouragement to spend money on eVU production and sales if they planned on ruling against them later with regards to violating the NDA?