"In this ruling, the court dismissed digEcor's claim that e.Digital breached a covenant of non-competition. By invoking a technicality, the trial judge said he would not enforce a non-compete agreement under provisions of California law even though e.Digital had signed a contract and promised not to engage in competition."

Translation:

Precedent and the LAW in California are considered a "technicality". The Court ruled incorrectly when the LAW was applied as it should have been.

"While digEcor will have to wait to appeal the court's decision that "Paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2002 NDA are invalid under California law," digEcor is pleased with the many other favorable aspects of the court's decision."

Translation:

We're pleased we didn't lose out on all claims.... yet.

"For example, the court held that e.Digital had breached its contract with digEcor by failing to deliver batteries. e.Digital owes digEcor a significant refund but, to date, has refused to remit this refund."

Translation:

Actually, this was never contested by e-Digital, but we thought we would mention this in hoping you didn't read e-Digital's statement after the ruling.

"Subject to the outcome of the next hearing, digEcor is looking forward to a trial on its claims that: (1) e.Digital breached its contract by failing to timely deliver 1,250 players in 2006; (2) e.Digital breached warranty obligations owed to digEcor; (3) e.Digital breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to digEcor by offering a competing product to digEcor's customers in 2006; (4) e.Digital breached its promise to give digEcor exclusive rights to DRM Technology in the IFE industry by incorporating that technology into a competing product; and (5) e.Digital and its officers, Fred Falk and William Blakeley, committed violations of federal and state unfair competition laws in connection with their marketing of e.Digital's competing product."

Translation:

Subject to the outcome of the next hearing, digEcor is looking forward to a trial on its claims that: (1) e.Digital breached its contract by failing to timely deliver 1,250 players in 2006; despite the fact digEcor never actually paid e-Digital for the players (2) e.Digital breached warranty obligations owed to digEcor; despite the fact digEcor never actually paid e-Digital for the players (3) e.Digital breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to digEcor by offering a competing product to digEcor's customers in 2006; despite the fact digEcor never actually paid e-Digital for the product sent to dig-Ecor and digEcor reversed engineered e-Digital's players (4) e.Digital breached its promise to give digEcor exclusive rights to DRM Technology in the IFE industry by incorporating that technology into a competing product; despite the fact digEcor never actually paid e-Digital for the technology OR the product and (5) e.Digital and its officers, Fred Falk and William Blakeley, committed violations of federal and state unfair competition laws which the Court has ruled the laws that apply do not grant digEcor a remedy in this case in connection with their marketing of e.Digital's competing product that they originally invented and marketed; and digEcor attempted to steal.

IMO