I can appreciate where you're coming from....

However, just keep this in mind. e.Digitals claims construction "phrasing" was not adopted by the court. The court was not going to make that abrupt a decision. With that, it did not adopt phrases the defendants considered either, though it may appear it partially had with reference to "not RAM or any other memory system" where, the judge stated that it may appear to be siding with the defendants.....it's not(or words to that effect). ....And it's not.

That reference is an analog field of use issue....and would be more conducive to "recording medium" which the defendants considered in its claims construction.....however, the court consider the "flash memory " issue in its considerations.

Within those considerations are the reference above and digital field of use issues as well.

DM got what it wanted.....and for now, this has noting to do with sp.

We are all here of our own free will and can come an go as we wish....DM can not do that....they have a commitment to follow through on. Where, IMVHO, they have the upper hand.

doni