"The reason it is very simple to prove and the main reason DM is excited about their cases is the removing of the flash memory card/chip (whatever) and asking the infringer to play back the audio from his device. If he cannot because the audio is contained on the flash memory then he has infringed. EDig's patent 774 covers ALL voice recordings on flash memory...That's pretty big..."

With that, basically, if a device cannot play an audio file with the memory removed, it's considered infringement?

If they figure they can stand on that alone....fine with me. IMO, without the full effect of all the patents, they would not be able to hit um up on that alone, that's why they're all sited for a case.

The question was asked yesterday, where does Sandisk stand with regard to e.Digital?

e.Digital is basically saying...make all the removable flash modules you want...we're after the device makers that implement them having an audio platform....and at this point it does not matter how the files on the removable memory are forwarded(shadowed/paged) into the audio platform. If you want to argue that point then we will move to that point.

It was noted yesterday, that Samsung pays Sandisk 350 mil per year in license fees for IP that is comparable to e.Digital underlying IP. When they give a one time licence....will it be for all related patents mentioned in a case, or just the claim of removable module?

Vivitar is apparently being considered a questionable circumstance....while Sakar is running off with the brand name...lol

IMO, a deal could be struck there, or do we go after Sakar at a later date?

What ever...

doni