e.Digital did not hand anything to Cornice....they utilized and interfaced the Cornice micro HDD storage...

Nothing there, it's when someone else is doing the developing, or the manufacturing that there may be a problem.

Like Foxconn in front of Apple...If Apple is knowingly excepting details delivered by Foxconn...in the way of firmware( a combination of software/hardware) detailed in devices.....it's rampant beyond Apple. Apple can also do things on their own, in the way of software upgrade after the fact that functions with the compatible hardware.

Apple is only protecting its interests, and would like nothing more than all others be caught.

Defendants are utilizing firmware (software/hardware) in similarity and do not have to have the exact physical issues of e.Digital.

The manufacture builds to the specs of the order (whoever might own it) to the hardware side considered....the owner of the order, would then have to supply the software side completing the firmware.

Apple knows exactly when the compatible software is added...via.. Foxconn or themselves....or Firmware components of others supplied.

They are just reading the patents and trying to do differently as best they can. As perplexed defendants make themselves sound in their pleadings, smoke screen....they understand them in detail.

doni