"but I still need to be convinced that Handal and company are done messing around."

Myself , I'm waiting for the validation that finally kills off the RAM issue. Though the appeal process is over the district courts decision to induce the CA on behalf of the defendants .... it holds hostage, or in limbo, the RAM issue between the claims of 774 and 108.

108 spells out the RAM issue and a judge in CO has ambiguously translated that 774 does not utilize RAM.

Those differences need to be resolved with a clean slate.

I need to see e.Digitals methods of creating data and transmitting to memory (or any other entity for that matter) through their cache(SRAM) schemes….emphatically resolved.

A positive appeal will do that. All of e.Digitals tech is centered on this I/O method of data creation and management.

15 years of my being involved have centered around this one issue and it has to be positive for me…. With that, IMVHO, NUNCHI, though a separate application issue, and any other application that e.Digital might patent is harnessed to this ability of what I recognize as telemetry data….or fast data with no overhead burdens. It doesn’t matter what the data is, it’s the way it is streamed and managed that is important.

Claim term (b) of 108 is my investment and a 15 year focus.

doni