I have the brain of a pigeon. Please clarify. Did EDIG use the word "ambiguities" in their release as a nice way of saying that the judge did not do her job? How can a judge have five months to rule on two aspects and then "rule" on only one part of one part? This seems to border on either total incompetence or possibly something more sinister. At the very least, she is kicking the can down the road( in vogue these days) which is exactly what the defendants want. They get to continue to use our patents without paying while we slowly bleed cash. I keep coming back to, this case is potentially so huge that no one, including our judge wants to touch it.