After reading Boyer’s declaration (Doc 235), it’s apparent to me he is lying about several things. I wonder if he was paid to lie.

• In paragraph 6, Boyer declares under penalty of perjury that he met with Steve Ferguson in April 2001 and insisted an NDA be signed before discussing his idea. Since the 2002 NDA was signed in April 2002, he’s off by a year.

• In Doc 98 paragraphs 14, 15, 17, Mr. Ferguson declares under penalty of perjury that Boyer told him his idea was “unique” and “patent pending”. We know Boyer is lying because he didn’t even apply for a trademark on the name “digEplayer” until Aug 2003 and applied for a patent in June 05. I can find no other patents or trademarks by Boyer or APS on the USPTO website.

• In Doc 98 paragraph 29, Ferguson learned from APS representatives that Boyer had never applied for a patent as he had told e.Digital.

• Notice in all of Boyer's declaration, he NEVER mentions anything about a patent he has applied for. Does he think the Court won't see that the NDA governs the handling of a Patent Pending idea which Boyer signed. Boyer knew there was no patent pending but lied to get e.Digital to sign the NDA. That's fraud people. From the second paragraph of the 2002 NDA,

“This agreement shall govern the conditions of disclosure by WILLIAM J. BOYER, JR. to RECIPIENT of certain “Confidential Information” including but not limited to prototypes, drawings, data, trade secrets and intellectual property related to the “Patent Pending” any and all products and/or materials disclosed in confidence by WILLIAM J. BOYER, JR. “

• Boyer’s declaration (Doc 235 para 26) directly conflicts with Ferguson’s declaration (Doc 98 para 19). Boyer says Ferguson never told him his idea wasn’t unique yet Ferguson says he did tell Boyer it wasn’t. Who to believe? Well, e.Digital has multiple proofs that Boyer’s idea wasn’t unique. The first proof is found in a President’s Newsletter dated 31 Jan 2000 which states e.Digital had “begun developing reference designs” for “technology to support downloaded video files in portable products”. More proof is found in a Concept Memorandum dated 16 Jan 2001 describing in detail e.Digital’s vision for its portable video player, then called VADA. e.Digital contemplated that the VADA would integrate video and audio entertainment within a small, portable device that stored content on a hard drive. Both of these proofs have been submitted to the Court.

• This is hilarious. In Doc 235 para 19, Boyer claims to not have seen the 2002 NDA statement in paragraph 6 relating to the the Non-Compete Provision which states e.Digital will not compete with “any and all components that APS, Inc manufactures, designs, etc.” Since Boyer only came to e.Digital with an idea and did not manufacture or design anything, Boyer tries to wiggle out of this by saying the “etc” is evidence that the non-compete provision is not limited to components designed or manufactured by APS. Give us a break. The “etc” still pertains to APS for wording such as drawings, prototypes, trade secrets. To say it includes components not affiliated with APS is ridiculous and I’m sure the Court will see through this bullshi**.

• After reading Boyers declaration, I'm more confident now e.Digital will prevail in January. The entire NDA should be thrown out as a fraudulent document by Boyer.