Okay, I`m trying to follow you.... But you`ve made reference to a couple of things that cause me confusion. You made reference to a contract, presumably between APS and EDIG. I take it that, in that contract, they included elements of the ``wish list`` for EDIG to implement in the development/production of the digEplayer. By virtue of inclusion of such language, they (MAY) have some rights to IP implemented based on their contract ``wish list``. However, I threw in the word ``MAY`` because this depends on how the rest of the contract reads. I don`t believe that the inclusion of such things in the general spec provides any IP protection unless there is a clause stating same. All this also depends on whether there actually was a development contract to begin with (i.e., if APS didn`t pay for development, in total, rights may not exist).

Assuming that there was a contract with these things in the development spec and there was a clause for APS IP protection; would this be the same contract that some suggest will be expiring soon? And will contract imposed IP protection ``live on`` beyond expiration of that contract? Is there more than one contract between APS and EDIG in play (beyond simple Purchase Orders; i.e., a development contract followed by a cooperation/production contract with certain stipulations, such as exclusivity)? Contract language can be very hairy, and unless you read them in their entirety, it can be very difficult to properly interpret and know who has rights to what). It is reasonable to assume that there was a development contract, but was it on a cost sharing basis, T&M, Cost-Plus, or based on a bid? In the first instance, APS and EDIG would likeliy share rights. In T&M and Cost-Plus, APS would likely own the rights. If based on a bid, EDIG likely owns all rights. (Contracts experience at work!).

You also suggest that APS submitted a patent application in which general specs are stated, but for IFE applications only. Is it likely the patent office would grant a patent on such a general concept?

And this prompts another question. Why would such a patent application state that the utilization of the tech concept only pertains to IFE? Seems very short-sighted (to the point of blindness). Certainly Boyer and Henson could see beyond IFE (well, Henson anyway).

Only logical conclusion I can reach here is that by narrowing the utilization of the tech concept, they (APS) thought they would have a better chance of actually being granted a patent based on such a concept.

A finish this, yet another, novel, I`ll start another message!

SGE