so much time to rule. Roughly the way I see it, the points

Defense contends

1- Patents wording does not equal the type of infringement ther Plaintiff contends. It was sloppily written and no care given to follow up meeting (my layman opinion).

2- What was meant by Plaintiff isn't written into the patent.

3- Admits some sort of ram could have been used but not nessesary for the type of voice application.

Plaintiff contends

1- Patent and its intents stand because of intrinsic reasonableness.

2- Made defense expert admit to some sort of ram and the possibilty of DSP meaning digital signal processor.

Every edigger should read this transcript. Freakin interesting. Thanks SS!!!

It has leaning towards firing my last bullet (only a small .22 caliper) at some more shares. But in my 11 years with EDIG and their "snakebitten" situations, I may have to save it for my forehead if they lose this case OR save it celebratory firing in the air if they win.