"Edig opinion article"

For me, APPLE is but a ship passing in the night...it's not an important passing @ this time.

IMO, a premature event that should not have happened at this time. Anyway, APPLE has had a gander and now has a complete understanding of what e.Digital is all about.

I don't give a hoot about Apple, or the outside generically generated news about e.Digital.

I live (and many of you here do) and breath e.Digital from 774 patent to present....legal actions and all.

And to this point, there are no discouraging thoughts for me.

IMO, things are falling into place almost as if they are preconceived....we are better off having the Appeal process now, now that the CE challange has become a revelant issue. If it did not happen now it would have in the future....with that, it nullifies the CO ruling if positive.

I have no idea how the 774 re-exam issues will play out in the appeal along side 108....IMO.. it should be recognized....for all its amendements.

However, one of the main reasoning's of the presiding civil judge ruling as he did on CE ....was about the sole memory issue (CO ruling) was not a factor of the initiated re-exam....with that, he was not recognizing the the amended sketch as a condition for the current cases....and was not allowing re-litigation of the sole memory issue.

He used that considered fact to some what base his ruling...stating that the re-exam was initiated on other issues....control circuitry....and not the sole memory issue.

Thing is, e.Digital did not initiate the re-exam of 10-27-10 and the defendant that did, did for its own reasons. The CO court ruled on the sole memory issue earlier 6-28-10 and that issue then became unimportant to the defendant that incited the re-exam.

In any event, it all fell in e.Digitals lap and they did what they had to do during the re-prosecution of 774....e.Digital was not going to start a third prosecution of 774 for the sack of the sole memory issue.

Why the judge ruled as he did in identifying the initial conditions of the re-exam as he did as a separate matter ????

I'm sure Handal is ???? as well on that matter....and it may have caught him off guard.

IMO, that will be one of the main arguments of the Appeal and not necessarily the direct issues of 774 / 108....which are more or less self explanatory....and USPTO approved.

doni